Jump to content

Solver

Members
  • Content count

    2,399
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    40

Solver last won the day on March 24

Solver had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

163 Excellent

1 Follower

About Solver

  • Rank
    Technology Enchanter

Converted

  • Location
    Sweden
  1. Option 3 is the most intuitive to me. When a soldier isn't in a dropship, it makes sense that the assigned loadout is the desired template and not something that actually depletes your stores now. It's the most user-friendly solution, preventing "losing" items and preventing the need to repeatedly reassign equipment. The big issue here is to make sure that's not confusing, but I imagine a graphical cue could address that. if a soldier is unassigned, draw their equipment with some transparency mask applied. It should convey the idea that the equipment isn't really "there" yet.
  2. Solver

    Xenonauts-2 March Update

    The most important part! Congratulations Chris, and get some sleep while you still can!
  3. Solver

    New Damage / Armour System

    I'm talking about an implementation detail though. Let 1 level be 10% (in the game files), and then you use multiples of 3 for the actual content. So you give the basic armour level 3 and a pistol level 6. Just pointing out that the game can then easily support different granularities in mods. Penetration and Hardness have been used as a pair in other games, so there might be some familiarity. On the other hand, level has a common meaning in games that's very contrary to what you're doing. A higher level means something is better/stronger. That's how RPG games work, that's how plenty of other games work where a Level 3 MegaBoomStick is simply better than a Level 2 MegaBoomStick. In a game where different weapon tiers are actually a thing, weapon and armour level are simply bad names for this - they're not just clumsy, they evoke a different concept entirely. If you want to more clearly link them together, you can use something clumsy but less directly misleading, something like "armour hardness" and "armour penetration", keeping one word in common in both terms to indicate they're related.
  4. Solver

    New Damage / Armour System

    With regards to damage nubmers and locational damage, I don't say this often, but I think the proposal is more complicated than necessary. Unless you go even into more detail with body parts and damage, it might be easier to implement and balance a somewhat simpler system. Keep a small random spread for weapons damage, say max -/+20%, and introduce a critical hit system that works pretty much like they always do in games. Let the critical head be a headshot for double damage. Then, just from that, a few variables would be enough to have significant gameplay variation. Let weapons have a critical hit modifier (for sniper rifles as you mentioned), and let soldier/alien entities have that modifier as well - maybe Androns are less vulnerable to crits, not being biological. Potential enhancements for mods/DLCs then include things like armour modules that affect critical chance (offensively or defensively), soldier perks related to crits, etc. Your current proposal is basically 40% chance of 0.5x damage, 40% chance of 1x damage and 20% chance of 2x damage. I feel like framing it in the context of locational damage, if e.g. the combat text says you were hit in the right arm, would even be actively disappointing - upon seeing such text, my first guess would be that the game has a complex system where each body part works differently (like Fallout), only then to be disappointed that it's simply a damage modifier phrased in different terms. So that's me calling for a simplification for a change. On resistances and armour HP in general, I agree with your post. Hopefully X2 makes good use of resistances - they were technically there in X1, but essentially unused. The weapon / armour level proposal is... confusing. I agree with the end goal as described, but I had to read the section twice to understand how it's supposed to work. Other than being pretty bad names, weapon and armour level sound just like penetration values anyway. What I'm seeing instead is a "penetration" value for weapons and a "hardness" value for armours. You can get the same numbers as you proposed and more flexibility with a simple rule. Armours have hardness, weapons have penetration. For each 1 point of difference between them, damage/suppression effects change as you described, but by 10% (flexibility for mods, etc). You stick to using hardness/penetration values that are a multiple of 3 to get the 30/60/90%. Optionally then introduce a global cap to these values to make sure 90% is the max. It's the same thing essentially, I guess the difference in what I'm saying is, use 10% increments as a base and get your 30% increments by setting the numbers appropriately, and don't use the terms weapon level or armour level.
  5. Maybe hold off on that and just drop the price? Combat shields have been limited items for a long time. At least going back to v7. Never crossed my mind that it might be a bug, and I actually consider it among the best minor changes in X2. Shields were very good in X1, and still are, giving them a cost feels fair.
  6. I think the biggest issue is going to be objects in the grenade's path and blocking chance. It's hard to handle. The idea of checking for a path on the level above is good, but it's only an approximation. If you only use that, you'll end up with impossible paths, so at most such a check can be used for part of the implementation. Consider throwing a grenade over a wide, one level tall barn while standing next to it. The soldier is at X, the rectangle is a barn. +----------------------------+ | | | | | | Target X+----------------------------+ That means there's a path through the level above: +----------------------------------------------------+ | | | ^--------------------------------+ | | | | | +----------------------------------------------------+ | |-----------------------------+ | | | || | | | | || | v | | ++ | Target | | X+----------------------------+ | +----------------------------------------------------+ But the path is impossible for a grenade throw - a grenade can't make two turns at a straight or nearly-straight angle. The soldier would need to stand some distance away from the barn in order to have the possibility of making that throw. Instead, I think the blocking chance of items on the ground level should be (nearly) unchanged near the thrower and the target, and be (nearly) zero in the middle of the path. This is a way of accounting for the grenade's parabolic trajectory, where it would in reality be at its highest point when halfway to the target. Alternatively, you could try and calculate proper parabolic trajectories, but that's easier said than done.
  7. I like these ideas. Orbital bombardment would be raising the stakes, which is a good thing. X1 is a game about an alien invasion but the stakes somehow never feel high. It's also true that a loss takes forever. I've tested what happens in X1 if I stop doing anything (just fast-forward without launching any aircraft), and it takes 3-4 months to lose even in that case. If Orbital Bombardment does 60 relations damage per month, that means a high-relations region can survive an entire month of bombardment without any positive relations events, which sounds good to me for a first implementation. Technology proliferation sounds great. I expect that the gameplay effect of upgraded local forces would not be very significant, but this kind of feature is great for flavour. It might be a good tie-in to another request of mine, different local forces units on different maps. A military base map should feature friendly soldiers that are decent fighters, while armed farmers should be less Rambo. Not sure about the gameplay particulars of signal uplinks, but I'm glad to see an idea that expands the gameplay to some Geoscape locations, a bit like earlier X2 design ideas. There's currently nothing on the Geoscape except your bases, which I consider to be a flaw. Infiltrator assassination missions sound amazing. Variety in mission objectives is great to have, and having a mission where you're encouraged to minimize fatalities would be a great change of pace. I can imagine it would be very satisfying to capture the infiltrator with no casualties among the guards. Careful balancing is needed here (and for terror missions!) to make sure that the fate of the locals actually matters.
  8. Solver

    Xenonauts-2 December Update

    Merry Christmas and happy holiday season to everyone at Goldhawk - your effort in working on Xenonauts 2 is greatly appreciated. Looking forward to seeing how it develops in the next few months
  9. The issue there is mainly with the UI. It wouldn't be too difficult to increase the amount of soldiers that can technically be on a mission, but there wouldn't be any UI to support that. So as things are, 16 soldiers is a hard limit.
  10. Solver

    List of Variables and Formulas?

    Ah right, that recoil is a penalty that should get applied to heavy weapons like LMGs. If the soldier isn't wearing a strength-enhancing armour suit, then the soldier's effective accuracy stat will be further modified by Max(0, (recoil / 100) - strength). Since recoil / 100 < strength for all vanilla weapons anyway, that's yet another bugged formula and wouldn't actually modify anything. New X:CE variables are documented, as for the old stuff, it's of course known, or can be looked up in any case, but it's not documented. There are probably a few hundred variables just in gameconfig/weapons/weapons_gc/aiprops files, and documenting them all accurately would be a lot of work.
  11. Solver

    List of Variables and Formulas?

    Do you mean something else perhaps? There's no hpLimit (or hp_limit or anything similar) in that file. What do you mean by recoil? Accuracy? Scatter? There's no variable that the game calls recoil. Not even close, unfortunately. What you see on this subforum is all there is, as far as I'm aware. Frankly it's not always easy to figure out how something is calculated, many things in the game can have a ton of different modifiers. The best bet, if you want anything specific, is to just ask here.
  12. They gain a certain amount of points per event though, taking/giving reaction fire once may be insufficient.
  13. I'm happy to report that the source code lines for reflexes progress have never been touched in X:CE, therefore it's the same behavior as vanilla.
  14. But that's just how quickly they gain their reflexes stats, you cannot change the circumstances under which you gain reflexes. Then again, it's already as the OP wanted - troops do indeed improve their reactions also from taking reaction fire.
×