Jump to content

Dagar

Members
  • Content count

    215
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    14

Dagar last won the day on November 15 2019

Dagar had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

52 Excellent

1 Follower

About Dagar

  • Rank
    Sergeant
  1. It tends to be the case that games that go from 2d sprites to 3d are looking worse afterwards. That said, who was playing Xenonauts for the visuals to begin with? That does not mean that your criticism is not valid, I have some grudges with the presentation as well, but let's face it, this is no FiraXCOM, and that is exactly why we are here.
  2. @Dermophile74Is the vanilla Xenonauts in French? Steam should let you download the english language for the game in the properties afaik.
  3. Dagar

    Xenonauts-2 March Update

    A bit late to the party as I have fallen from checking the forum daily in the last months. Still, I'd like to welcome you in the rank of fathers, Chris, and hope everything goes well with birth. Yeah, you will get little sleep, but hey, you can now officially always get away with dad jokes, which is nice! (Not the only nice thing about having children by any means)
  4. Dagar

    Idea: Conceal Mechanic

    I think this would be a nice addition for a mod to bring. Does not sound too hard.
  5. Not really, because prior to that you have to calculate whether the grenade should be able to land there in the first place. You cannot use your approach, if the target position is through a wall. But then again, maybe you can throw over the wall? Is there a roof over the thrower or the target? What about windows in the way? Are they aligned well enough that this throw could succeed? And so on and so forth.
  6. Well, in that case they were intentionally throwing very short, risking their own lives. That should still be possible in Xenonauts 2. All I am saying is that it does not come across as believable if 10% of your far throws land short because of wonky mechanisms, and in that case I would not use damage grenades at all, most likely.
  7. I'd advocate calculating a real parabolic arc instead of using a system that is hard to predict. A ballistic trajectory mainly is dependent on the initial movement vector; that would be true for both thrown and launched grenades. You could handle the inaccuracy by altering the throw vector in its strength (length) and direction depending on distance and the thrower's accuracy. You could then project an "forecast" area onto the scene describing where the grenade may actually land, so it is always understandable what risk you are taking by attempting that throw. Finally, you apply the randomness to the vector and calculate the actual parabolic trajectory. The good thing with such a system is that it behaves as we would expect, along with the possibility of deflecting surfaces like ceilings, floors, walls (deduct some strength from the vector at the moment the surface is hit, mirror the direction according to the surface normal and calculate the next arc up to some threshold strength where the grenade is just considered stationary). If not this, then I'd propose a system based on your cover system. Determine the highest obstacle in the way between source and target to see if the throw is actually possible, and if so, how many stories it would arc over (you could limit the height, but the maps are already limited in height and not too high to be totally unplausible). With every necessary height level, the accuracy would drop (maybe halve), reflecting that throwing over a building is not very accurate because since you cannot see and have to expend much strength to even reach the height, it is hard to hit even near the target. Then, for each height level bridged, you would separate a portion of the throw and assign to it the height of objects it can pass over without a chance of interference. This would start at full height obstacles on the thrower's level, as humans are not really capable of hitting cover right in front of them (well, I also had a comrade in the military who managed to hit his own sandbag cover, but... you know... elite troops and all...). Towards the end of the arc, even half height objects on the target level could interfere and stop the grenade short for a bit. Basically, you then have the whole distance separated into smaller ranges where certain height cover has the chance to interfere. I want to have an exception to the area very close to the thrower not just because it is rather unlikely for a throw landing at your feet to really happen, but also because it is really unsatisfying and confusing for the player. Personally, I would not use grenades in any situation where I would risk the thrower's life, so I'd abstain even from throws my experience tells me would be safe.
  8. Yeah, this is known, but not really published somewhere afaik.
  9. Dagar

    Your Xenonauts 2 wishlist?

    Whatever soulful means. FiraXCOM has its fair share of problems, which were not all adressed form FiraXCOM2, like not being able to lean out from a slightly elevated position (a step up, so to say) or cover destruction being basically the only meaningful tactic in the highest difficulty and Long War, because dashing into the unknown for a flanking manoeuvre leads to coffins full of Assault soldiers. I found FiraXCOMs systems enjoyable at first (it was my entry into the genre after all), but it gets very formulaic fast. In your defense, so does Xenonauts' system. I would call neither "soulful".
  10. Dagar

    Modular Armour System

    Talking about a back slot: If you can opt to not take a backpack, that should also be viable. What always bugged me that it made no sense to not stuff your soldiers to the brim of their carrying capability, i.e. in X1 there is a malus for carrying too much but no bonus for carrying less. Stalker had this as a very neat system of increasing encumbrance, which means you could opt to go in very quiet, fast and light or as a heavy, slow walking ammo and gun locker. Using a similar system it could be really viable to do light pistol scouts with increased TU (so they can move farther and use more items and stuff) and reflexes (so they don't get shot at as much. Extra cool would be if you could drop your backpack to get these bonuses temporarily. On the other end you might have heavy soldiers who cannot even do certain things, akin to how (at least in X-Division) the Predator wearers cannot use medkits. As another suggestion on equipment, how about a backpack that provides a smoke screen when (while) being shot at?
  11. Dagar

    Modular Armour System

    Sounds really good, I like the approach. I could envision both upgrades for all the gear of type X you currently have, if there is a flat-out improvement, e.g. +5 acc for the tactical visor from dissection of Ceasan sniper eyes, but also an alternative piece of gear with other stats (e.g. a heavier visor that has night vision or can see through smoke better, but does not have the acc bonus), which you would have to produce separately. Now how cool would it be if there were not actually new types of armour, but you'd elect a set of new components to be made into a new standard piece of armour? Like say the heavy armour, tactical visor and exoskeleton legs would become a new type of armour you can produce as an alternative to the single components, granting larger bonuses while unaltered (because they are designed as a whole instead of piecemeal) and also cost slightly less material compared to the single components. That would make the set of equipment a quasi-standard for your troops, i.e. what the X1 armours really are.
  12. Dagar

    UFO Roofs Indestructable?

    Okay, so I am going to ask the really important question here: can we also jump UP levels now? Like with the Parkour perk or some exoskeleton tech?
  13. Saying that again, but while we're at it, please let us replay the alien turn or give us some other info like last seen position of actor X.
  14. I am so far disengaged with my first days of Xenonauts and with the Vanilla game that I can't tell personally, but if you watch some first let's Plays, you'll see people be overwhelmed by the system, because all they know is flying straight at the enemy and getting shot down. The game does not do a good job of explaining anything, really, and the fact that you should pause as often as you can, use manual waypoints, manage your evasive rolls with keys that are not explained and that the speed has influence on your turn rate and that you should attack from the side to land missiles against evasive targets, all that is stuff you have to explore to really be successful. try working without all that and you'll likely find the air game frustrating. Can you point me towards people who do not want to have a fun game or who want the game to play itself, please? Because if I read someone wanting that I must have forgotten that by now. The thing is that what is fun to you and what is easy to you does not have to be the same for everyone else. I am obviously talking solely about the air game, not the strategy (world map) part. Maybe I worded that one a bit misleadingly. Obviously you still need to keep up with research on aircraft and their equipment to make it through the game, but not to be good at the manual part of it. The problem with X1s air game is that it arguably is the least important of the three parts of the game, the least "core" part, and the most special with its pausable real time system that needs quick reactions, while at the same time being, along with the other two parts, a component you have to succeed in in order to win, makes it frustrating for some players who already voiced their concerns. I am not one being frustrated with the air game, but I still would like to see a turn-based system instead, because I feel it would fit better into the game's overall mechanisms. That said, I have no idea how to make a good turn-based air game of two widely different opponents, as I also have said multiple times now.
  15. That's not what @Charon wrote. He meant that the air game should start simple and easy to be manageable by all skill levels and then increase in difficulty gradually. As for the difficulty increase losing campaigns: I could envision that stays simple enough so you can finish a campaign pretty much regardless of what you do. You'd lose some engagements, but some are pretty much guaranteed to win, furthering the narrative and your progress. But there would be optional goals to fulfil there to increase difficulty and/or risk as well as rewards. Speaking of the old X1 system, how about not focusing too much damage on one side of the UFO so components do not get destroyed in-air? Or how about you if could try to concentrate fire only on some areas or use weaker weaponry in order to spare more crew who you then have the chance to capture? Or how about while developing new weaponry you could field some prototype that may speed up your development of the weapon, but be worse/less reliable than what you have right now? With pilots being characters more like ground troops, even experience and achievements could be a thing to bring in there.
×