Max_Caine

The AI behaviour is legit. It's something that players can and do do during their turn. As the map is explored, the player can and does induce where aliens are based upon where the aliens have not been. The more of the map is explored, the tighter the ring forms around where aliens can be. The difference between player exploration and AI is that if aliens are dotted around the map to start with they get to explore the whole of the map more quickly than the player can. If the individual AI unit could not share information with other AI units this would be a moot point - they couldn't build a coherant picture of the world and react to it. However, if AI units couldn't share information, you'd get unusual and bizarre behaviour. AI could not, act as groups for example or respond effectively to player threats. If the AI is permitted to share information, then it would be probably be better to have aliens start at designated spawn points on the map. Then the AI's knowledge of the map would be more resitricted.

There is something I'd like to say about AI and available information. It is possible to make the AI seem like it's cheating, even when it isn't. Take an average map. Sprinkle enemies throughout the map so the population density for any particular map area is quite low. At the start of the enemy turn, tell each enemy to spin in a 360 circle before any enemy makes any other kind of move. Because the data collection points are scattered throughout the map, the AI is instantly aware of 60%-90% of the map (depending on map construction and enemy placement). With that information, it's then possible to logically deduce where the players troops are on a negative mask of the available information. Because the player doesn't know that the AI data collection points are spread throughout the map, it looks like the AI is cheating, even when it isn't. Data collection and data sharing for the AI is a contentious issue. Just how much do you "legally" allow?

Ladies and gentlebeings. I have opened up a thread where people can discuss AI in general. I shall draw a line now under the previous discussion and ask that people only discuss or submit what Chris would like discussed and submitted, i.e. A.I. test scenarios.

At the suggestion of Charon and Giis-Jan I have made this thread so people can discuss free AI programming in general, and in specific AI programming and Xenonauts. So have at it!

So, something like this? Scenario: Find the best path for alien with a range 1 (e.g. close combat) weapon to approach a target. Rationale: If an alien has a range 1 weapon, it must be next to a target to use that weapon and have enough AP to use the weapon. Therefore, an alien must find the best path to approach a target which maximises the chance to use the range 1 weapon. If an alien is not seen, it cannot be shot at. Not being shot at is better than being shot at, so the best path an alien can take is a path where it cannot be seen by the target. If an alien cannot take a path where it cannot be seen, then if it does not have the AP to move directly to the target and use the weapon in the same turn, it should move as close as posible to the target while being able to hide behind cover, as hiding behind cover is better than being in the open. Take the following worked example: Assume the target (red square) cannot move. To the left is a wall (black line) which blocks line of sight. To the right is a large object (blue square) which does not block line of sight but counts as cover. The alien (yellow square) does not have enough AP to move next to the target and use the weapon in the same turn. If the alien moves directly towards the target: FAIL. The alien has picked the worst path and will be shot at next turn. If the alien moves behind the large object (blue square): PASS. The alien has not picked the best path, as it stil can be seen, but has a chance to be protected. If the alien moves around the wall: A+. The alien has picked the best path to move towards the target, as it now cannot be seen by the target. Note this is very simple: it doesn't take into account such things as using the strategy of double-backing, however it emphasises the use of cover, and the importance of not being seen.

The LMG has gone through several iterations as the game has progressed. I have seen versions when the LMG was the only pick worth taking (that was an interesting time). It's my understanding that the intended LMG in-game use has always been to inflict the suppressed condition on a target. That is to say, the purpose of LMG is as a ranged debuffer, with damage caused as a secondary function. If the suppression damage on the LMG was cranked up so it auto suppressed a target on the first burst, would that be enough of a reason to keep it around?

This is a dead thread brought back to life, and I come over to see a squabble over the groaning corpse. Thread locked.

Ok Alienkiller, that's stepping over the line. Specifically, "go play something else" is stepping over the line. People have the right to both approve and disapprove of choices made for X2 and to voice their approval or disapproval so long as it's done in a civil manner.

Not a developer, but I'd like to ask. How tough an economy do you consider to be fun, and would you consider a tough economy (of the standard you prefer) to fun throughout the game? It seems to me with game like Xenonauts that economies usually start out tough, where you have to be lean to survive, but as time moves on the war budget first becomes sufficient then overflowing. What do you like to see in your preferred Xenonauts economy?

Hello, your friendly neighborhood moderator here. One of the few benefits of moderation is having a long memory. Discussion threads about armour and weapons in a game like this are like cud. They're often chewed on, swallowed then regurgitated to be chewed on again. MrAlex, I think this thread would be of benefit to you, as it was the last time armour was publically discussed. I'm sure you'll find the bickering and squabbling amusing. I direct you to this post and this page in particular. EDIT: Seeing as almost a years has passed since there was a response to anything in that thread, could everyone please keep comments on this thread? Cheers.

It would be interesting to add panic/stress multipliers to certain events instead of flat values. A multiplier could simulate events which in of themselves are stressful but cause other events to be more stressful because of the loci of the event. As an example, a "fearsome" alien could be stressful in of itself, but the things that alien does are likely to be more stressful because of the alien doing it. Seeing a Reaper could be stressful, seeing that Reaper zombify a civvie could carry the stress penalty for seeing a zombie, multiplied by seeing a Reaper doing the zombifying rather than applying a flat value for the zombify action. From a gameplay perspective, if certain events carry a multiplier rather than a flat value there exists the possibility to evade the event rather than suffer it, which then allows players to feel that skill can form an aspect of stress management. for example, it may be less stressful for the commander to order his troops to shoot a civvie which is going to be zombified rather than take the stress hit of a zombie multiplied by the Reaper.

Back in February Chris set up a thread discussing grenades. I was just reminded of it and went looking for it. The discussion has been had, but if you want to see what was discussed, the link is below.

I think you may have to be more descriptive than using the term "odd" to describe how you feel about grenades. You clearly have issues with them, but could you be more articulate in what specifically frustrates you with grenades?

If you are able to, could you submit some savegames, it will make it easier to pinpoint where the bugs happen.

Okay folks, I need people to step back. Trashman made a valid criticism of a part of the text he didn't like. He addressed the argument (or in this case, the text), not the person. There's no need for anyone to make comments about each other.