Skitso
-
Posts
2,873 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
88
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Skitso
-
-
-
Shots go through a lot of things all the time. The trajectory is just a visual approximation.
That said, shield bearers should provide considerably higher block value than a normal soldier (20%)
-
3
-
-
17 hours ago, Chris said:
3) Yeah, that's intentional. You can shoot over adjacent cover (including crouching soldiers), and if you can shoot over it then it's ignored for the hit calculation and so we also disregard it from the miss shot paths. If you don't do that, you get units shooting through windows from 20cm away hitting the windowframes etc.
I think you misunderstood the issue.
X = Standing soldier
O = Kneeling soldier
Y= Low cover
XOY
when X shoots, Y shouldn't be taken into account as it's adjacent to an adjacent cover (O in this case)?
-
6 hours ago, Chris said:
I don't really want to get into a long discussion about it in this thread, but I'm not sure I see the problem? I think the XCOM system is pretty dumb where an object only offers protection if you're within a meter of it.
If the shooter and target are in a straight line, it doesn't actually matter where the cover is along that line in terms of how much of the target is obscured. Broadly, the reason you'd want to get closer to it (both in the game and in real life) is because then the object offers protection from incoming shots in a much wider angle than if you were several meters away from it (when it's only good from attacks from directly in front of you). But that's already modelled in the game,
I replied in discord to not clutter this thread with off-topic
-
2 hours ago, Chris said:
Whereas in an abstracted system you know getting closer increases hit chance, and "flanking" to negate cover increases hit chance, and you can very easily deduce the pros and cons of moving to any given tile. The current system isn't perfect by any means but it is much snappier than a 3d system.
I started a thread about the issues I have with the cover system few weeks ago where I wrote this:
"While I think the cover system Xenonauts 2 currently has is elegant and works fine, there's one critical issue that really brings the tactical game down.
The issue is that you don't need to use a cover to be in cover. It's completely irrelevant if you are hunkering behind a waist high concrete wall or if the said concrete wall just happens to be in between you and the shooter. It just doesn't make sense and makes tactical choises too easy. It just doesn't matter that much where you move your units, as there's almost always some cover in the line of fire (which means you are as good as in cover anyways)
Proposition: kneeling next to a cover provides double kneeling buff, kneeling without a cover might also need to be debuffed so players really feel the need to find a cover."
Any comment regarding this?
-
1
-
-
I agree. One step more in both directions would be welcomed.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, BeelzeBubba said:
TBH I was not blown away by the visuals at first glance. But I played anyway because the game's still awesome, which gave me time to notice a lot of nice touches. Like how the barrels leak when shot or how trees sway intermittently. If I print the screen and zoom in, I can see that this game's art holds up to the AAA XCOM reboot pretty well.
It's because I play on a laptop that's only 16" (something like -57/sqrt(pi)m in metric??). Maybe the devs can throw us laptop users a bone by adding a level-of-zoom feature? That way we don't need to printscreen the game and zoom in with image software just to see your cool graphics.
Alt + mouse wheel up/down?
-
Related to this again,
Fire (and presumably other transparent elements) break abduction tubes.
-
19 hours ago, Chris said:
Have you played the game yet? Lasers have a scaling accuracy boost compared to ballistics, heavier weight, increased armour destruction but lower armour penetration, and lower capacity (but recharging) ammo magazines.
Obviously it's subjective if that makes them feel sufficiently different from the earlier tier of weapons for them to be interesting, but it's also not true that they're mechanically the same barring the damage number like they were in X1.
I do think @TrashMan has a valid point there though. While certain weapons do have unique traits, overall the game does play out quite samey regardless of how far in the game you are. The issue is that the game doesn't require to adapt and learn new tactics and I can keep playing almost exactly the same way from mission one to all the way through the game.
This is a copy of my earlier post where I raised a similar concern:
"Enemies are the same, they use same AI routines, tactics and weapons throughout the game, and the game only scales it's numbers up. Levels and UFOs get larger, there's more aliens with more health that cause more damage. Meanwhile I also get more units that have more health and cause more damage, so in the long run, everything stays pretty much the same. Even the maps are pretty homogenous layout wise regardless of the biome or how far in the game you are. In X1 each biome felt more distinct with their own unique traits. (Some being very open while some were really cramped etc.)
To up the stakes, aliens need more than just higher numbers. They need new weapons (burst, aoe, incediary, poison, wall penetrating, long range grenades, slow seeker missiles etc.) new tactics and AI with new tricks and special skills (psi, flying, teleporting etc.) to really force me to adapt my playstyle and to keep me on my toes. Currently I already know pretty much what to expect, even when I raid a new UFO class or meet a new enemy type."
EDIT: I understand the fact that I've played the game way more than most ever will, and that things do start to feel samey when you've put hunders of hours in it. But still, I do think that in general, painting things with broader brush strokes might make the game more fun - even if it means it's not always in perfect balance. Put random 5 mentarchs in some crash site and I'd definitely not anticipate it. And I'd love it!
-
1
-
-
@Kouki it was this map:
-
3 minutes ago, Kouki said:
Thanks as always for reporting bugs! This most likely is caused by the wrong cliff asset used for that area, but I'll need to check the map itself to make sure. If you have a save file that's going to help a lot, but if you don't, do you remember what mission type this was (will help me narrow down which desert map to look at)?
Nope. I'll get back to you when I see it again
-
13 hours ago, Murb said:
I’ve gone through all the comments in here and yours have consistently struck me as comments from someone who has too ambitious of an idea of the kind of game they thought X2 would be lol. The complexities you want weren’t even present in either of the XCOM games and their respective Long War mods.
Might be. I always try to aim as high as possible to achieve greatness - in every part of my life. Mediocrity is just not something I need or want.
I just came back home from watching the new Alien Romulus movie and It was dog shit, just like most entertainment is today. Just a loud rollercoaster ride in a familiar setting with no greater ambitions than gaining maximum profit. Ridley Scott had ambition and vision back in 1979 and the first Alien is still regarded as one of the greatest scifi movies of all time.
I love Xenonauts 2 as it's clearly a labor of love for Chris and the team and has insane potential to become a timeless classic. Just like the original alien, ie. something people will enjoy for years to come. With vision, ambition and will to do it, they can do it - and if I can help, even a tiny bit, achieving that greatness...
of course I'll do it.
-
1
-
-
It also looks funny when a missed shot hits an obstacle. Currently the arc ends neatly and perfectly to the obstacle, looking like it was aimed there.
-
As seen in the image, back sides of the rock formation corners are not black as the middle piece correctly is.
-
If I imagine myself shooting with a grenade launcher, I'd probably manage to point it quite well in the right direction, but the vertical angle (distance) would probably provide to be a lot more difficult to estimate. So what I would propose would be to decrease the lateral deviation to maybe 10-15 degrees per direction and make it deviate more in way of distance (too short or too far)
-
1 hour ago, Conductiv said:
the proposed changes:
current (basic cover 40%) 0.6 * (current kneel 10%) 0.9 = 54% of enemy accuracy applied.
basic wraith at 70 *1.2 (rifle aimed shot) =84 means approximatly 44-45% chance of getting hit
to
proposal: (basic cover 40%) 0.6* (improved kneel 20%) 0.8= 48% of enemy accuracy applied
basic wraith at 70*1.2 (rifle aimed shot) =84 means approximatly 40-42% chance of getting hit
absolute difference is less then 5% so will occur in less then 1:20 circumstances, my hypothesis here is that you simply wouldn't notice the proposed change.
I propose an alternate: when crouching and facing the direction of enemy fire, adjacent cover bonus is magnified by 50%
my proposal (basic cover 40%, magnified to 60%) 0.4* (current kneel) 0.9 =36% of enemy accuracy applied
basic wraith at 70*1.2 (rifle aimed shot = 84 means approximatly 29-31% chance of getting hit.
can be recalculated with the other cover numbers 10 and 60, none will give absolute immunity to getting shot like full cover, but the 60% cover items will give a very noticable advantage (enemy hit rates <10%). and with an absolute difference greater then 10% on the most common covers, it will at least be noticeable there. like the OP's suggestion, just crouching in the open provides no additional benifits. my suggestion does not magnify the offensive capabilities of crouchingYeah, this is much better, but might need some cover value tweaking. I like that kneeling behind a 60% cover provides significant cover. This really add to the strategy and gameplay where choises matter. @Chris, any comments/opinion on this?
-
1 hour ago, gG-Unknown said:
Good theory but it is not true. It happens that several numbers are red and none gray. If there is a color coding system, it doesnt work.
Then you need to make a bug report and provide saves where it happens
-
6 minutes ago, Chris said:
Yeah, the obscured yellow tiles are drawing black for some reason. I can't reproduce it though. Can you?
I'll get back to you when I see it again
-
On 8/1/2024 at 6:09 PM, Chris said:
It's probably also worth mentioning that the Geoscape UI is also not yet final (which is why it still looks so similar to the first Xenonauts), and we'll be tackling that once the Air Combat is done.
Any hope for 3D geoscape still?
-
6 hours ago, Charon said:
@ Skitso s I dont mind insults, but you are not adding anything to the discussion, but are just escalating it.
In Finland we have this proverb: "Niin metsä vastaa kuin sinne huudetaan", which roughly translates into "so the forest echoes as one shouts to it" which kinda means "what comes around goes around".
I've been on these forums more than 10 years and you probably agree that I (almost) always strive for constructive feedback and polite critisism. Bernie's way of coversing there was rude and childish. So, "niin metsä vastaa kuin sinne huudetaan". *shrug*
-
Related to this, these alien (both horizontal and vertical variants) and cleaner tubes suffer from the same issues of shroud transparency and being too tall:
-
2 hours ago, Bernie22405 said:
Exactly the level of maturity I expected of you, Skitso.
Yeah, and it warms my heart to see you've matured too, with having PMS and everything. Have a nice one, go touch some grass.
-
Now that I look at that image again, it seems it's the yellow part of the line of fire that is black if it's behind something.
-
14 minutes ago, gG-Unknown said:
BTW: why first cover probability hit is in red, then second is in gray ?
Highest cover value (that is added into the hit calculation) is red. Other lower or same values are gray.
Xenonauts 2 November 2024 Update!
in Monthly Development Updates
Posted
Lab art looks like a nice improvement. Good work there!
Talking about the wall of text... waiting eagerly for the patch notes.