Jump to content


Development Team
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Everything posted by Gijs-Jan

  1. Gijs-Jan

    Xenonauts 2 - Public Build Date Set

    Hah! > Edit: Thank the lord, no.
  2. Gijs-Jan

    New forums online!

    Let's see if everything migrated over correctly. Testing 1 2 3...
  3. Gijs-Jan

    Xenonauts 2 Easter Update

    No need to preface your comment, all critique is welcome and with such a diverse community looking at the thought behind the post instead of its literal text is pretty much a requirement ;-) I suspect that with ' lack of direction' you mean the lack of distinction in the art. Distinction in the sense that nothing necessarily 'stands out'. Again, this is intentional: It is meant to emphasize the atmosphere, to make it more realistic.
  4. Gijs-Jan

    Xenonauts 2 Easter Update

    Do you mean in the sense of integrity as a whole or a distinguishing aspect? I'd disagree with both of those points :-). The point of the art (music, visual, atmospheric) was to emphasize the time and setting in which the game was set. The cold war was a very bleak and hopeless time in human history. Combined with the idea of global destruction through alien invasion it is very much "grimdark". Xenonauts has a lethal playing style, and death is grim. Units are not meant to be one-man chrome-finished murder machines. Every aspect of the art direction emphasized and, more importantly, aligned with this overall design principle. The style just seems to be a very polarizing opinion-wise. Could the artwork be better? Sure at times, but I wouldn't dare call it directionless.
  5. Gijs-Jan


    Looks quite interesting!
  6. Gijs-Jan

    Xenonauts 2 Easter Update

    Apart from what Chris already mentioned; the way the codebase is setup this time around will make it *a lot* easier for the modders to fundamentally alter the game.
  7. Gijs-Jan

    need help with air tactics

    Hi! I'll leave the strategizing to some of our more senior forum members, but to get an edge in on the air combat you could take a look at Taskus youtube videos that show you how to get the maximum out of your planes:
  8. Gijs-Jan

    Obligatory Christmas Post (Also I'm back! :D)

    Welcome back :-)
  9. Gijs-Jan

    Debating Xenonauts 2

    Just a heads up; I'm a huge fan of Arkham Horror / Mansions of Madness.
  10. Gijs-Jan

    Is it all there?

    Great to hear/read that experience!
  11. Gijs-Jan

    An Alpha Reaper "Reaction Fired" on me?

    The initial AI design was based around Monte Carlo Tree Search; however, all the logic in the game didn't lend itself for simulation environments. (Procluding GA's as well) At some point I do want to make a model of the Xenonauts game mechanics; and work from there. Once I get some downtime, I'll most definitely look into it again. (Note though that once I go that route; I'll probably go with MCTS as the basis for the AI, instead of behavior trees. AIProps values will become less important then though.)
  12. Gijs-Jan

    An Alpha Reaper "Reaction Fired" on me?

    Heh, maybe I'll release a build showing why not. :-P (It seems fun at first, till you release the AI will find the nastiest corners and make sure you can't cross without some Close Encounters of the Seventh Kind.)
  13. Gijs-Jan

    An Alpha Reaper "Reaction Fired" on me?

    Just be glad that I didn't make them camp around corners, full of TU.. (evil)
  14. The moment one of the alien units engages you; it will call in back up. They will all also move towards locations where they think you are. Which is the most I can obviously do without people calling me a cheater for that as well .
  15. This is an excerpt of the document I wrote on the AI of Xenonauts: So; yes, increasing the HP will probably ensure a lower value of the target. This due to the fact that the relative damage done decreases.
  16. The AI takes the "effectiveness" of a weapon into account; and it does prioritize based on "value". Value being a pretty long formulea; which I documented in aiprops.xml!
  17. Love to hear things like this; and I added it to my list of things to look at.
  18. Gijs-Jan

    Civilian AI

    Very easily. It's a switch in the aiprops.xml; so you don't need to alter the source code. The problematic part is balancing it out, which takes time. The trepidation to enter the UFO is handled by the Civilian "Goal" attribute in aiprops.xml
  19. Gijs-Jan

    Civilian AI

    From the AI perspective, there's no real difference between the behaviors applied to the Civilians and the Aliens. It all comes down to weight balancing, and I focused on the Alien weights instead of Civilian. It goes to show how much can be gained through altering the weights as well. (Although the Civilian AI might need some extra weights to make "more sense" of the world, the current weights available to the AI are all constructed to model a world that emphasis on hunting down something.) I think that XNT Into Darkness mod has Civilian AI weights which are better balanced. TacticalDragon spent some time on that. I added it to my shortlist though.
  20. This post is a bit more direct to the point just to clarify everything, I love the fact that you guys try to analyze the AI in the game, much as I did years ago in Xcom:EU. I also love the discussion and interaction, and as during development will try to incorporate things which are interesting. I'm also flattered by the people defending me in this subject. Thank you, and know that I do not see any of these posts as insult, only opportunity to either explain or efforts to help correct faulty AI behavior. God knows that the track record of bugs in the past resulted in some pretty weird behavior. So this isn't an angry post, it's just to clarify; as I seem to be contradicting myself and causing confusion: Yes, the aggressivity is triggered upon proximity. Yes, you could consider this to be cheating. (* See argument below) No, the AI still doesn't know exactly where you are. Just that it should move into a position you most likely will be. In case of UFO's, this results in storming outside. (As this is the most viable location for you to be; the AI knows the UFO is empty) * My Excuse: in a first iteration of the game, when probabilistic estimation of positions was enabled, the AI became near omnipotent legally because it had units spread out all over the map, and took into account that the Human player always arrives from a certain origin. It derived the almost exact position of every unit, legally. Why did I build in this cheat then? - It approximates the legal behavior; but only when we want it. - It doesn't give the AI legal omnipotence, which just plain sucks. - It's orders of magnitudes faster. (AI turn time decrease) Yes, I consider the case of the AI to know where you are in terms of grenading through/over doors a bug. However, it's most likely due to LOS calculation problems. The AI only uses the logic of the game to tell it whether it should be able to see something. In the past it's been shown that some UFOs have problems with LOS not being calculated correctly symmetrically. (I can see you; you can't see me) Yes, I consider AI omnipotence a bug. It should not happen, and I will deal with it on a case by case basis. The cases I asked a save of, I found to be suspect. No, I don't consider the AI becoming aggressive as you move near it a bug. It has no situational awareness; it does not know your TU, your weapons & etc unless it has seen you. I consider this an opportunity for the player to become inventive and counter a threat. Player intelligence far outweighs the benefits received from this. No, I don't consider the AI rushing outside the UFO once you come near it to be a bug. Lore wise there is no reason whatsoever for it to not be able to view the tiles outside the UFO. (I personally think there's outside cam and/or windows) It creates for very entertaining play if you know how to counter it. The AI will also not start rushing units one after another in a Xcom:EU lemmings kind of death, and will "learn" if you camp the outside. Which the player then in turn needs to counter.
  21. Which is why I request the save, so I can take a look at it. There are checks in place to make sure the AI is not just magically fed the correct location and distance.
  22. If this happens it's just a plain bug. Nothing in my code gives the AI the ability to teleport for free. I'm pretty sure you are referring to the animations being skipped bug; which was fixed quite a while ago. Like before; try to provide a save and I'll look into it
  23. It's more or less how it works. The AI is just fed the aggressivity along with the normal information. So the AI might still decide not to act on it. Keep in mind though that this happens with about 10% chance (hence the once in ten turns comment). This is not "spazzing out", and it's behavior that far more often than not results in correct behavior.
  24. Before this gets out of hand; this is purely the aggressivity enabling. The AI still has no information on your exact whereabouts. It does not know whether it's walking into a deathtrap or not. The reason why some of these stick out though is that it >can<, >sometimes< severely punish wrong tactics. Which in my opinion, is as it should. Prepared and unprepared players alike would get the same reaction, with the same RNG. It >might< interact with the AIs ability to predict whether you have spent your TU, but this system, again, does not cheat. (Or it should not) The behavior is unpredictable, and if you stick to "correct" tactics you shouldn't be punished. However, as I said before, if anyone can provide me with a save; I'll happily look into it to see if a bug is causing any misbehavior. My hunch though is that you guys remember the times the AI & the RNG gods rolled against you; while not remembering the times the AI made a "mistake" by running into well defended units.
  25. I'll chime in as well; as this issue seems to pop up quite a bit, just provide me with a save and I'll look into what's going wrong. And, I've got no problems with admitting when I've made a mistake. More than enough bugs popped up during alpha that I have no problem with admitting fault. Anyway, as I said before; there is a trigger for aggressivity when a unit nears the AI. And if you camp; you're quickly letting it get a *heck* of a lot of information. (Especially during base defense where the AI has squadsight on near damn your entire base from the start) As for the 10 turns Chris refers to; this is the aggressivity, not a ping to the AI on where you are. Just an incentive for it to move towards you. If you provide a save and I can see that it's a bug, I'll fix it. The grenade scenario makes me think it's a bug, however with the upcoming projects I've had to temporarily switch my attention. So I can't go bug-hunting without a reproducible scenario.