kabill
-
Posts
4,320 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
11
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by kabill
-
-
I kinda feel bad for the troops in the beta versions. Who's gonna remember their sacrifices when the full version comes out.
Maybe in the finished version they could add to the credits: "and all the countless Xenonauts who died exterminating the bugs"
-
Soldiers have a single armour value for all directions (although armour can vary against different weapon types). Vehicles have separate armour values for front, sides and rear (according to vehicles.xml).
-
The Wiki hasn't been updated for a long time. I know for sure the gun fire accuracy stuff is wrong. Take everything with a grain of salt.
Yeah, sorry, should have made that clearer. For what it's worth, the stuff to do with cover seems right to me based on play experience, but I've never made an effort to check the numbers.
-
There's probably all kinds of mistakes here, but my understanding of things (based on playing and the wiki):
1) Cover blocks shots, but it is applied kind of like a to-hit penalty (I think). Meaning, for example, that if you have a base to-hit of 50%, and there is a 50% cover prop interceding the shot, your chance to hit is reduced to 25% (0.5 * 0.5 = 0.25) but if the attack roll is 26-50, the shot hits the prop (rather than missing completely and scattering). So kind of both?
2) Don't know what effect kneeling has in terms of the accuracy of a shooter, although it *increases* the likelihood of hitting interceding props meaning that if you don't have clear line of sight you'll usually end up with a worse chance to hit than if you're standing. In terms of a kneeling target, I think such targets have a 60% stopping value (which, I guess, means shots have a *0.6 modifier on them against kneeling targets).
3) Would there be any benefit to that beyond debugging? (Or was that the point?).
4) Don't think so, but don't know.
5) If the shot passes over the cover prop, it provides cover. Otherwise it doesn't. If you have enough of an angle, you'll miss the cover, but it's all or nothing. For what it's worth, there's never a cover bonus for being around a corner - either there's line of sight (and thus a straight shot) or there's not (therefore no shot). This took some getting used to; I was a bit too used to XCOM: EU's cover system at first and some poor Xenonauts paid the price.
-
If you're in Steam, you can take screenshots by pressing F12, if that helps?
-
@Mytheos/StellarRat - thanks!
(And sorry for minor thread derailment).
-
Gas grenades would work well as area denial, at least against aliens which aren't immune. It's the main reason I'd like to see tox-grenades or whatever they were back in.
I guess you could use C4, as well, but you'd need to guess good with the timing. (Or, shoot it when the aliens are in range?).
-
So, using that scale you should be able to throw a grenade 25+ tiles, BUT, and this is a BIG BUT, that also means you ought the able to pop off stationary targets with even an AR at about 150 tiles easily. Basically, the whole map is point blank range for a lot of direct fire weapons. Do you see the problem now?
Serious question ('cause I'm interested to know) - is it actually that easy to hit something with a rifle at 200+ metres? Having never even laid eyes on a gun, let alone fired one, I've no idea how difficult shooting is. I'd have figured that shooting at that range would be difficult even against a stationary target, let alone a moving one or a target in cover (and even more difficult while under fire).
-
If the range property on weapons is the problem with grenades and suppression, I assume this will also be true of rockets (in that even if the rocket hits within it's range, any part of the explosion outside of the rocket launcher's range won't cause suppression). Haven't tested this, but I'd be very surprised if it wasn't the case given how suppression seems to work.
-
hi guys,i have a problem..alien terror attack in harare,africa well i have landed and after hard fight against ceasan(killed at least 25-30 aliens,destroyed entire buildings and so on, and the ship was a corvette...)the enemy continue to spawn (at least 7 in line of sight) and the game freeze..a think is a bug...i have just dwloaded the v 19.6 hotfix during the game...happened to others??
That might be a bug with the hallucination psionic power? I had the same/similar issue on a Corvette GC. I think there is a plan to disable this at some point until it can be fixed.
-
I'd be surprised if gas stacked on the same tile (I don't know, but I can imagine that causing all kinds of technical difficulties for the game).
If it is a balance issue, and not a bug, I'd argue that it's not necessarily a bad thing. Having aliens vary in their vulnerability to different attacks I'd say is something which benefits the game (and, in this instance, might encourage more use of the stun baton?). For Sibellians, as well, it's quite interesting if it does sap their regeneration, as it means if you're fighting a tough high ranking Sibellian you can throw stun gas on them to mitigate their regeneration while you shoot them.
-
Hmm - I'm fairly certain armour degradation works as a percentage drop. Certainly some testing I did before implied this.
Having just done some more testing, this is definitely the case. Armour is reduced by 10% of the damage *deflected* from an attack. So, for example:
- If armour has a value of 20 and you're hit for 60 damage (ignoring damage randomisation here), you'll take 40 damage and your armour is reduced by 2pts (since the armour deflected 20 damage, 10% of which is 2).
- If armour has a value of 100 and you're hit for 60 damage (again ignoring randomisation), you'll take nothing as your armour is reduced by 6pts (since the armour deflected 60 damage, 10% of which is 6).
[Tests were done pretty much using those examples. Although I used different weapons with the smaller armour value].
-
The gas definitely has some subsequent effect - I've seen aliens (including Sibellians) go down not because of the initial stun damage but because of damage taken from starting their turn in a stun gas cloud.
Just a thought, but could your experience be caused by Sibellian regeneration? I have no idea how much they heal per turn, but if it cures stun damage too that might be why it doesn't seem to work.
-
Finally, I think that the radar ranges need to be dramatically reduced, at least at the higher difficulties. If you put one base in the Suez Canal and one on the Yucatan peninsula, you can cover most of the globe. I'd like a game where I need at least four bases to ensure adequate global coverage.
I thought about this too, primarily in terms of making the Cairo starting base less optimal.
-
Just to clarify, my question was about why people feel the need to launch a ground combat mission after they've shot the UFO down. I'm not advocating letting them all escape, but at the same time not every crash site needs to be attacked (there's no penalty for not attacking a crash site, but obviously you don't get the rewards for doing them).
It's just an observation really, I'm interested in the thinking behind it. Even in the original game I didn't use to do all the missions.
To me, it's not at all obvious that you shouldn't do all the ground missions. In so far as the game is primarily about shooting down UFOs and recovering them, there's no way I would guess that the game would be designed around sometimes not doing that even when you can. I would (and have) assumed that the game will punish me for not taking advantage of the opportunities I'm presented with.
It's possible you could learn that doing all the missions isn't necessary (or even close to necessary), but only once you've finishing the game (and therefore once you know how the difficulty scales and what you need to do to win). But before that point there's no way a player could know (without being told) and in so far as someone has not completed the game, why would they not take advantage of everything they can in order to secure victory?
In short, then, for me I would expect to have to do as many missions as possible as I'd assume the game would be balanced around that (in the same way that, for example, I'd expect an RPG to be balanced around me doing most if not all of the subquests). If that expectation is wrong, then I would contend that there's no reasonable way for a player not already inveterate to know this.
-
It wouldn't necessarily have to be a *small* resource sink; the impact it has on available resources will be directly related to how important it is made!
I can see the advantage of advanced ammunition having a cost associated with using it, in that it creates a choice: do I muddle along with basic weapons to save resources for other things; or do I spend resources on advanced ammunition at the expense of (whatever else)? However, I can also see the advantage of the extant system in that it removes this choice and makes the strategy game easier to balance since you can pretty much count on the player having specific resources at their disposal when they need them.
In other words, if the strategy game was balanced around having to make the kind of trade-off I described, then I think it *would* (or could be made to) matter and my suggestion would help remove some of the busywork required by the player. But the game doesn't have to be designed like that and I certainly don't begrudge the decision which has been made for the game at present.
(My *ideal* game would involve there being all kinds of different pressures on resource usage, but I wouldn't pretend that getting it right would necessarily be worth the time and effort required nor the risk of failure!).
-
-
Stinky indicated above that he thought that disableDamageScaling was supposed to cure this problem (and this was introduced in 19.x).
In any case, I was under the impression firing outside of effective range stopped suppression entirely rather than reducing it*. I'm wondering whether there's a modifier being applied to suppression beyond effective range which isn't enough to counteract all of a FBs suppression value, hence why it can still work but be less effective.
*This may be wrong; I didn't even learn that firing outside of effective range was supposed to negate suppression until recently!
-
I wanted to play with this because I've had experiences slightly different to what Stinky describes. Specifically, I've had instances where FBs seem to have done less suppression damage then they should have done, but using several still produced suppression eventually. I therefore wanted to test if the suppression value when out of range is *reduced* rather than negated entirely. Testing suggests the latter:
1) Soldier in grenade throwing range. Throws FB two squares away from the alien. Alien is suppressed with that single FB.
2) Reload. Two soldiers out of grenade throwing range. First on throws a FB to the same spot as in test 1. Hits the alien, but does not suppress. Second FB is thrown to the same place. Hits the alien and causes suppression.
3) Reload again. Soldiers outside of grenade range as per test 2. LMG soldier fires a burst at the alien. Does not suppress. Throw FB to the same spot as in previous tests. FB causes suppression.
The conclusion seems to be that Stinky's right that it's related to range, but being out of range isn't stopping all the suppression damage, only some of it.
P.S. Not sure many of those pics are actually useful. Sorry.
-
So, I just loaded the game up via quick combat to test something and the hidden movement screen seems to be working correctly there (i.e. disappears when it should do). Is that because it uses an old build in some way?
-
I've gotten into the habit of having multiple saves so I don't lose too much if it happens.
-
It just seems to me that setting alenium missiles/torpedos to a high priority and having them produced asap automatically is not really all that different from the current situation of all alenium+' date=' all the time. I might wonder why my spanking new set of armour isn't ready yet or something and go investigate, I suppose, but that'd be about it since I wouldn't change the order priorities. As far as financial resources go, I'd rather be docked the money when I get back to base and rearm; as far as the resource of time goes, I'd rather have aircraft take longer to re-arm depending on the tech level of the missiles/torpedos and the number of engineers available. In the latter, yeah, a "prioritise repairs" button would be useful, since you react to alien incursions and not act.[/quote']
That's fair enough - you'd basically just automating the process further. I'd mainly just been thinking of how it might be done broadly within the extant system; if it were going to happen (and I'm not going to hold my breath!) I imagine adding a 'standing order' system would be easier than adding in additional bits and pieces to replicate that automatically.
I don't think I'd be crazy to suggest that most of us posting in this thread have a long list of what's wrong with XCom '12' date=' but did I like the foundry projects. The one you got for mutons was extra ammo capacity for ground battles, iirc, and having something like that here would be welcome for both ground and air combat (laser+ guns for gc, cannons for air). It's true that passives run the risk of being stupendously dull - I don't think anyone's ever said "Hell yeah, +1.5% damage with laser weapons! Awright!" and then pumped their fist after playing something like Gal Civ 2 or most games with talent trees - but it can be done.[/quote']I think the trick with passive bonuses is to actually make them make qualitivative differences to what you can do. The ammo example from Xcom 2012 is a good one, since it interacts interestingly with some of the class abilities which make it much more than just increasing the number of shots you can make before you reload. You could definately do some interesting things with air combat (reduced cooldown time on evasive roll; afterburner speed bonus; etc.).
Maybe in the expansion pack?
-
I'm not sure that 'not thinking about it again' is necessarily a bad thing - indeed, that's pretty much the point! It's simply a mechanisms to ensure a resource cost for using advanced munitions with minimal messing around.
Having 'upgrade' engineering projects does lend itself to a variety of different things, though, which actually might make it more interesting. In fact, it would pretty much do the same thing as the Foundary projects in XCOM 2012. I'd not spotted that.
-
We have different definitions of interesting then, because I don't really enjoy having to manufacture ammo.
While it's probably too late for new features now (for both time and balance reasons) you could possibly overcome this by having the ability to set standing orders for engineering such that the engineering crew will maintain a stockpile of munition. For example, you could set an order to maintain 10 Alenium Torpedoes meaning that if the stockpile dips below that, the engineers will automatically start constructing them until the stockpile is replenished. That way, the micromanaging is seriously reduced.
Alternatively, specifically for explosives/missiles, you could have a one-shot engineering project which then upgrades all the relevant items rather than getting the free and instant buff that you get at the moment. That way, there's some cost with upgrading these things but you don't have to micromanage.
Open Doors Give Cover?
in Xenonauts General Discussion
Posted
I think in the OG shots could pass through a target square. Units had a height stat; it mattered somehow:
http://www.ufopaedia.org/index.php?title=Height