OpenXcom Forum

Modding => OpenXcom Extended => Topic started by: Meridian on August 12, 2016, 12:42:34 pm

Title: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 12, 2016, 12:42:34 pm
Just putting this into separate thread, so that I can report on progress and ask questions without polluting other threads...

I sat down with Dioxine and we have compiled a list of features that we would like to see implemented the most. It is here:

https://docs.google.com/document/d/1pUZBoVKeZmfXUwIm4-FDRLx_fIISGFrp1131DLfyO40/edit?usp=sharing

Each feature contains a brief description of how it should work.

Many of these are old and already mentioned in places. Also, some of them are more sensible/easy than others. But all of them are there for a specific, practical reason, ie. there are actual plans for their use (in Piratez and X-Com Files).

Hopefully this will be of some use.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 12, 2016, 12:43:08 pm
For Yankes (he already changed this part of code, I shouldn't be messing with it)
-------------
- Global damageAlter per type
- [DONE] Custom damage types
- More than 1 damage type per bullet
- Alternate animation for overkill

Interesting (I'll put it on my todo list)
-------------
- [DONE] Exclude a soldier type from the promotion system/military ranks
- [DONE] Sick Bay facility -- including option limit of facilities per base
- [DONE] Soldiers as pilots
- [DONE] Exclude a soldier type from driving
- [DONE] Environmental effects
- [DONE] Starting conditions by terrain
- Terrain destruction by melee

Hmm? (on todo list with low prio)
-------------
- [DONE] Random Treasure Lists
- [DONE] Unhardcode approach/disengage speed per ship
- [DONE] Alternate vision modes
- [DONE] Definable types of Alien Containment
- X-Com craft crash sites

Meh! (not my taste...)
-------------
- Custom factions in battles ... I think we have enough factions
- Everyone can do everything ... scientists don't make good soldiers and soldiers don't make good scientists... not even in Star Trek... amount of necessary changes would be immense too... for almost zero benefit

Huh? (I have currently no knowledge of this part of the code, can't say if possible or not)
-------------
- Vertical maps

AI (I would need to look at AI source code... which I don't wanna... <spoilers>)
-------------
- Terrain trampling by AI units...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 12, 2016, 12:44:12 pm
If possible, I would like to recommend to move random treasure lists to a higher priority. Because it looks (to me, a layman) like a relatively simple job, and I know it'd be colossally beneficial. For example Piratez has many copies of the same ship with the only difference being some items laying on the floor; this is a very messy and time-consuming method.

Yeah, it's not difficult.
I did this so far, is it sufficient?

Node is called "randomizedItems" and it is a list.
Each item within this list contains:
- position - defult [0, 0, 0]
- amount - default 1
- mixed - default false
- itemList - default empty

Position says on which position the item(s) should spawn.
Amount says how many items should spawn.
ItemList is a list of items to choose from randomly.
Mixed says if one item should be picked and generated amount-times... or if each of the amount-number of items should be picked randomly.

Example below shows:
1. 30 identical items of type either STR_SOME_JUNK or STR_OTHER_JUNK spawned on [6, 2, 0]
2. 5 different items of type 1 or 2 (for example 4 items of type 1 and 1 item of type 2)

Code: [Select]
  - type: STR_VESSEL_CC_CLOUDCAR
      mapBlocks:
        - name: VESSEL_CC5
          randomizedItems:
            - position: [6, 2, 0]
              amount: 30
              mixed: false
              itemList: [STR_SOME_JUNK, STR_OTHER_JUNK]
            - position: [4, 3, 0]
              amount: 5
              mixed: true
              itemList: [STR_RANDOM_ITEM_1, STR_RANDOM_ITEM_2]
          width: 10
          length: 10
          items:
            STR_UFO_POWER_SOURCE_SMALL:
              - [6, 2, 0]
            STR_FIRE_EXT:
              - [4, 3, 0]

Yes, it looks very good.
Do I understand this correctly: if I set Mixed to false, I'll get either 30 STR_SOME_JUNK or 30 STR_OTHER_JUNK, with a 50% chance for either. If I set it to true, then I'll get 30 items altogether, some of them STR_SOME_JUNK and some STR_OTHER_JUNK. Yes?

Exactly.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arctic on August 12, 2016, 12:46:37 pm
For Yankes (he already changed this part of code, I shouldn't be messing with it)
-------------
- Global damageAlter per type
- Custom damage types
- More than 1 damage type per bullet

Interesting (I'll put it on my todo list)
-------------
- Terrain destruction by melee
- Environmental effects
- Starting conditions by terrain ... except for allowedCraft, since terrain is unknown at take-off time
- Exclude a soldier type from the promotion system/military ranks
- Exclude a soldier type from driving
- Soldiers as pilots
- Sick Bay facility

Hmm? (on todo list with low prio)
-------------
- Terrain trampling by AI units... would need to look at AI... which I don't want
- Random Treasure Lists
- X-Com craft crash sites
- Unhardcode approach/disengage speed per ship
- Definable types of Alien Containment

Meh! (not my taste...)
-------------
- Custom factions in battles
- Alternate vision modes
- Everyone can do everything

Huh? (I have no knowledge of this part of the code, can't say if possible or not)
-------------
- Vertical maps

What about "Integrated HWPs"? Basically, craft could have HWPs pre-attached, which spawned in the same place relative to the craft every time. It would make stuff like gun turrets possible. Imagine: Do you bring 14 men, or 6 men and a craft capable of fire support?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 12, 2016, 12:48:27 pm
Exclusion of soldier types from promotions is now possible:

Code: [Select]
  - type: STR_SOLDIER_S
    allowPromotion: false

Technically, these guys are rookies.
Instead of rookie, description STR_RANK_NONE is used everywhere.
For promotion mechanics, these soldiers don't exist... i.e. cannot be promoted and also don't count into number of soldiers when determining promotions eligibility.

Translations:

Code: [Select]
      STR_RANK_NONE: "-"
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 12, 2016, 12:50:18 pm
What about "Integrated HWPs"? Basically, craft could have HWPs pre-attached, which spawned in the same place relative to the craft every time. It would make stuff like gun turrets possible. Imagine: Do you bring 14 men, or 6 men and a craft capable of fire support?

Was it really necessary to quote the entire previous post to ask a question?
Also, please open a new thread... I opened this one so that I don't pollute others... and you polluted mine (with unrelated topic) after 2 minutes of its life.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 12, 2016, 12:55:29 pm
@Solarius: how should the Sick Bay facility work?

Should it decrease the recovery time immediately after the mission?
- problem: after moving that soldier to a different base, the bonus would not be revoked

Or should it "heal" a different amount of hit points per day than 1?
- problem: healing 1.5 HP sounds stupid, but doable :) in this case, should the bonus from multiple facilities stack? if yes, how? if no, which takes precedence?

EDIT: also, I wanted to add possibility to limit number of facilities of certain type in a base (and also globally across all bases)... would that be something interesting for you?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: niculinux on August 12, 2016, 01:08:44 pm
I really like thebxcom crash mission, original :)

@Solarius: how should the Sick Bay facility work?

Like this one too, peraphs it should half the overall nuber or recovering days. :)

Exit: similar to xpiratez' hideout shroud
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 12, 2016, 01:23:21 pm
EDIT: also, I wanted to add possibility to limit number of facilities of certain type in a base (and also globally across all bases)... would that be something interesting for you?

Such limit, at least per base, should be controllable with other facilities (eg. 2 Workshops/base for each Power Plant +1 workshop free, or 20 buildings total allowed for each Command Center + 20 free), but even if not, certainly useful!

That reminds me... if you don't want removing wounded soldiers on the training list, how about at least marking in red those who are signed in, but cannot profit from training anymore? (either due to wounds, or reaching facility's caps).

As for the hospital, I'd use the training facility interface. Hospital has capacity, people signed in heal x amount of sick leave each day.
However, this would also probably require unhardcoding the basic healin formula for proper balancing (what I see is formula of number of sick days infliced = (a%....b%)y + (c%...d%)z*e, where y is the amount of hit point lost, and z is percentile amount of health lost (so, setting y to 0, you will have people with high hp heal back as fast as those with low hp).
Also, with cut down recovery times by a factor of 2 or 3, due to hospitals, we can go back to the idea of 'stress from combat' :) (but I'll leave this for later time and better place).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 12, 2016, 02:15:11 pm
Exclusion of soldier types from promotions is now possible: (...)

Excellent, I couldn't ask for more.

@Solarius: how should the Sick Bay facility work?

I don't know to be honest, I don't have the knowledge, that's why I left it vague. Anything is acceptable, as long as the bonus doesn't affect people who are transferred out.

A possible, if a bit hackish, solution is to roll every day for every wounded soldier in the base if the healing time is reduced (in addition to the normal -1 day). We could define the chance (in percentage) and the amount (in days).

It's just an example though, not actual guidelines. Dioxine's system looks more robust. (I read his answer after I wrote my example solution.)

EDIT: also, I wanted to add possibility to limit number of facilities of certain type in a base (and also globally across all bases)... would that be something interesting for you?

Yes, I think I've explained this before... This can be done by the reversal of "required function" for buildings, which is "forbidden function". So if you want to disallow more than one HQ per base, you can give it the function BASE_HQ add also the flag FORBIDDEN_BASE_FUNC: BASE_HQ so that it forbids itself.

That reminds me... if you don't want removing wounded soldiers on the training list, how about at least marking in red those who are signed in, but cannot profit from training anymore? (either due to wounds, or reaching facility's caps).

Not a bad idea.
Though I think it was done best in Apocalypse, where you can go over the max slots, but the training efficiency drops. It would probably be hard to do though.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 12, 2016, 03:12:28 pm
Not a bad idea.
Though I think it was done best in Apocalypse, where you can go over the max slots, but the training efficiency drops. It would probably be hard to do though.

Depends on how micro-managey you want to get. Still, such script would need to account for wounded/maxed out soldiers before arriving at final stat gain chance.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 12, 2016, 03:37:02 pm
Depends on how micro-managey you want to get.

Not much, that's why I like this system. You can just put everyone on board and not worry about wounds etc.

Still, such script would need to account for wounded/maxed out soldiers before arriving at final stat gain chance.

Yeah, that's why I said it would be hard to do.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 12, 2016, 03:48:38 pm
Such limit, at least per base, should be controllable with other facilities (eg. 2 Workshops/base for each Power Plant +1 workshop free, or 20 buildings total allowed for each Command Center + 20 free), but even if not, certainly useful!

General idea is not bad. Maybe in phase 2, let's start with small steps.

That particular example is however something I really don't like. The Power Plant is totally useless and annoying. It doesn't serve any purpose other than take valuable space. Facilities like workshop (or initial Lab for that matter) should come with built-in power plant or other power source. That's an abstraction I think we can afford... to make our lives easier and concentrate on the game instead of femto-management.
And if taking space (or prolonging building time) was the original intention, I'd just decrease workshop space (or increase building time).

That reminds me... if you don't want removing wounded soldiers on the training list, how about at least marking in red those who are signed in, but cannot profit from training anymore? (either due to wounds, or reaching facility's caps).

User option to automatically remove the soldiers from training is now implemented.

As for the hospital, I'd use the training facility interface. Hospital has capacity, people signed in heal x amount of sick leave each day.
However, this would also probably require unhardcoding the basic healin formula for proper balancing (what I see is formula of number of sick days infliced = (a%....b%)y + (c%...d%)z*e, where y is the amount of hit point lost, and z is percentile amount of health lost (so, setting y to 0, you will have people with high hp heal back as fast as those with low hp).
Also, with cut down recovery times by a factor of 2 or 3, due to hospitals, we can go back to the idea of 'stress from combat' :) (but I'll leave this for later time and better place).

Hmm, again probably phase 2 with the interface.
For now, I'll just do a facility, which can increase the recovery speed (per day).

Yes, I think I've explained this before... This can be done by the reversal of "required function" for buildings, which is "forbidden function". So if you want to disallow more than one HQ per base, you can give it the function BASE_HQ add also the flag FORBIDDEN_BASE_FUNC: BASE_HQ so that it forbids itself.

The "forbids" function is fundamentally flawed and simply doesn't work for anything else than making singletons from certain facilities. All other (potential) use cases can be workedaround by the player. I have illustrated this on examples in other thread.

The limit I want to do is a much simpler concept and already allows more... for example allowing max 3 buildings per base (e.g. max three sick bays). And by setting it to one, it encompasses all functionality the "forbids" function can realistically give you.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 12, 2016, 03:58:08 pm
The limit I want to do is a much simpler concept and already allows more... for example allowing max 3 buildings per base (e.g. max three sick bays). And by setting it to one, it encompasses all functionality the "forbids" function can realistically give you.

Yes, if it's doable, that's certainly better.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 12, 2016, 06:36:33 pm
That particular example is however something I really don't like. The Power Plant is totally useless and annoying. It doesn't serve any purpose other than take valuable space.

No, that's totally out-of-the ass idea. If asked seriously, I have no solid plans yet, but I'm thinking to add some sort of 'command' buildings, each more expensive than the last, each increasing the total number of structures you can build (all bases included). But like I said, just a fancy, not sure if it's a good idea at all.
In general, maybe this system can be used to limit the valuable space in more elegant ways that it is done now (because yes, that's the precise purpose of the power plant - to take up space and limit the sprawl - well yes it's also used to increase the investment required to have laser weapons) :)

User option to automatically remove the soldiers from training is now implemented.

Great!

The limit I want to do is a much simpler concept and already allows more... for example allowing max 3 buildings per base (e.g. max three sick bays).

I like it, but good luck explaining such limits to the player... Well I mean, that's my job, and I dread it :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on August 12, 2016, 06:57:53 pm
I'm not sure you're looking for input from "randoms", so if that pollutes the thread, feel free to remove.

Re: sick bay
The interface allowing to select wounded soldiers is best and a neat goal. Otherwise the same one tile space that can only support ~40 people living suddenly becomes able to heal 200. Although I guess maybe they go back to sleep on their own bunks after treatment.. The simple way works too with that argument, but it removes any need to have more than one of the best facility (unless they stack but that'd be insane).

The easiest implementation would be to make the facility heal 0-X sick days per day and allowing non-integer number of sick days. Pick the best sick bay on site to determine X, as stacking there can be a justification for them stacking.

Is there a way to make facilities require items to be built? Would be neat to have surgery rooms that require surgery tools, cloning bays that require cloning tech, etc. And eventually cloning allows you to bring back dead soldiers, which is not all that unbalancing anymore given how good trained rookies can become with the gym.

Re: Power plant
I hope not, I thought the electricity bill was included in maintenance!

Re: Forbid
Can you set "maxFacility" to zero, for mutually exclusive facilities? Like Altar of Hell preventing Shrine of Heaven, otherwise there would be a civil war on the base. That property would have to count as soon as the building is under construction of course.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Yankes on August 12, 2016, 07:21:59 pm
The "forbids" function is fundamentally flawed and simply doesn't work for anything else than making singletons from certain facilities. All other (potential) use cases can be workedaround by the player. I have illustrated this on examples in other thread.

The limit I want to do is a much simpler concept and already allows more... for example allowing max 3 buildings per base (e.g. max three sick bays). And by setting it to one, it encompasses all functionality the "forbids" function can realistically give you.
Right now `forbidenBaseFunc` prevent building other buildings that give you listed functionalities. If you have already this functionality in base you cant build that building in first place. How could be this workaround? Only way to have some forbidden functionality is that building that prevent it, itself provide it. This mean it could be only one.

If you could break this I would like to know how you did that.

Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 12, 2016, 08:12:12 pm
I would add customizable smoke to the list, allowing you to set the damage, damage type, decay rate and 'density' of generated smoke, in addition to the amount, allowing for poison gas grenades to actually create poison gas and the like.

Also I would expand the vision type request to include customizable invisibility (you can set which vision types, if any, a unit can be seen by), as well as vision type being modifiable via items/armour the latest model of the Ayephone might include Psi-o-vision for example in order to detect those annoying Ethereals.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: robin on August 12, 2016, 09:00:17 pm
i confess i lost track of things a bit, so forgive me for the stupid question: are these features going to be integrated into OXC extended?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 12, 2016, 09:07:57 pm
i confess i lost track of things a bit, so forgive me for the stupid question: are these features going to be integrated into OXC extended?

Some (mostly not GUI related) changes will be backported to OXCE... the rest will stay in OXCE+.

Is there any specific reason why you would prefer OXCE over OXCE+ ? If something is bothering you, I can make it optional :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: robin on August 12, 2016, 09:29:35 pm
Some (mostly not GUI related) changes will be backported to OXCE... the rest will stay in OXCE+.

Is there any specific reason why you would prefer OXCE over OXCE+ ? If something is bothering you, I can make it optional :)
I see, thanks.
I'm on vanilla OXC, I'm largely ignorant about OXCE--OXCE+. I just wanted to understand a little the situation, because I've been "lost in pixelation" for months and I was wondering if it made sense to make a comment (on the wishlist) or not.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 13, 2016, 10:59:44 am
I see, thanks.
I'm on vanilla OXC, I'm largely ignorant about OXCE--OXCE+. I just wanted to understand a little the situation, because I've been "lost in pixelation" for months and I was wondering if it made sense to make a comment (on the wishlist) or not.

The OXCE+ is to OXCE like OXCE is to the vanilla OXC. the difference is that Meridian and Yankes are cooperating and sharing work.
Yankes is keeping OXCE slimmer on purpose, since many features in OXCE+ are, among other things, dependant on strings or additional resources, and OXCE is supposed to be code only.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 13, 2016, 11:24:57 am
the difference is that Meridian and Yankes are cooperating and sharing work.

Cooperation yay!
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 13, 2016, 12:00:37 pm
Sick Bay is almost ready.

There are two places, where it will not work 100%.

1. in the Commendations... since statistics and medals are calculated and awarded immediately after the mission, the recovery time used for those calculations will be as if there were no sick bays... since it is impossible to predict the future (i.e. how many days the recovery will really take... soldiers can be transferred, player can build more sick bays, etc.)

2. in the soldier Sorting by Wound recovery (combobox on 3 GUIs)... unlike previous case, this COULD be fixed... but it is rather ugly (codewise)... so I decided to sort by the recovery time without considering sick bays
- the sorting will be correct! with or without sick bays, more wounded soldier is still more wounded... unless I implement recovery by percentage of HP :) which I might...
- the dynamic stat column will show e.g. 100 (days resp. HP missing).... but WOUNDED>44 will be displayed as (correct) recovery time... this might be useful for the player to compare how big bonus are the sick bays providing.... and also for the modder to balance the sick bays to his/her pleasure

EDIT: maybe just "WOUND RECOVERY" in the combobox can be renamed to "HP MISSING" and it will be 100% correct
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 13, 2016, 01:17:50 pm
Code: [Select]
facilities:
  - type: STR_FIELD_HOSPITAL
    sickBayAbsoluteBonus: 0.75
    sickBayRelativeBonus: 0.0
  - type: STR_SURGERY_ROOM
    sickBayAbsoluteBonus: 0.25
    sickBayRelativeBonus: 1.0
  - type: STR_REGENERATION_ROOM
    sickBayAbsoluteBonus: 0.0
    sickBayRelativeBonus: 10.0
  - type: STR_GOAULD_SARCOPHAGUS
    sickBayAbsoluteBonus: 90.0
    sickBayRelativeBonus: 0.0

With no facilities: 1 hp healed per day

With one field hospital: 1.75 hp per day

With one surgery room: 1.25 hp per day + 1% of soldier's max hp

With 2 field hospitals and 2 surgery rooms: 3 hp per day + 2% of soldier's max hp

With regeneration room: 10% of soldier's max hp... i.e. fully recovered in 10 days or less

With Goa'uld sarcophagus: 90 hp per day... i.e. fully healed overnight
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 13, 2016, 02:32:05 pm
I like it, but good luck explaining such limits to the player... Well I mean, that's my job, and I dread it :)

Code: [Select]
  - type: STR_ALIEN_CONTAINMENT
    maxAllowedPerBase: 3

Translation:

Code: [Select]
      STR_CANNOT_BUILD_MORE_OF_THIS_FACILITY_TYPE_AT_BASE: "The maximum allowed number of facilities of this type in this base has been reached!"
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 13, 2016, 02:39:37 pm
Great!

Wounded soldiers in Training facility are now also indicated by a dash in the last column... instead of Yes or No.

Code: [Select]
      STR_NO_WOUNDED: "-"
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 14, 2016, 05:48:42 am
In explaining, I meant on this forum, about WHY ONLY THREE??? ;)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 14, 2016, 09:10:12 am
In explaining, I meant on this forum, about WHY ONLY THREE??? ;)

Sorry, what?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 14, 2016, 09:40:15 am
People are going to ask, why only a limited number of a given structure is allowed per base. Nvmd, I was just joking.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 14, 2016, 10:06:55 am
People are going to ask, why only a limited number of a given structure is allowed per base. Nvmd, I was just joking.

Well, you can build only one Access Lift, and nobody is asking why? :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 14, 2016, 10:13:51 am
That's actually a good question! Why can't I build more lifts to increase fire security??? :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 14, 2016, 12:11:47 pm
Quote
Soldiers as pilots
If you want to send a fighter, there must be a soldier on board. This is particularly important for the Piratez.
The soldiers’ stats give modifiers for air combat.
If there are more people on board, the first one on the list is the pilot.

Take off may now require configurable number of pilots onboard. Default is 0.

Code: [Select]
crafts:
  - type: STR_VENTURA
    soldiers: 18
    pilots: 2
    vehicles: 2

Translation:
Code: [Select]
      STR_NOT_ENOUGH_PILOTS: "Not enough pilots!{NEWLINE}Minimum: {0}"

Question:
- how exactly should the stats of the pilot(s) modify the air combat?
(Please don't say, you want to be able to use a script to program it yourself based on all imaginable attributes.)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 14, 2016, 01:17:46 pm
Question:
- how exactly should the stats of the pilot(s) modify the air combat?
(Please don't say, you want to be able to use a script to program it yourself based on all imaginable attributes.)

Okay, so absolutely bare minimum needed IMO. Taking numbers from the air, since I have no possibility to test these formulas in practice, obviously. It's only a proposition.

Craft Weapon Accuracy: + Firing Accuracy * 0.2 (this makes the bonus a major one for cannons, small for missiles).
Craft Dodge (in effect, a flat minus to ufo's hit chance): + Reactions *0.25 (halves hit chance for normal UFO, if you have 117 Reactions, before any craft dodge bonus. Low enough to be acceptable even for the clumsiest of crafts, but can make a major difference for hi-end crafts).
Craft Approach/Disengage Speed: x/sec, where x now is 0.25, and I think it could be 0.1+(Bravery *0.004), giving 0.14 for 10 Bra, 0.26 for 40 Bra, and 0.5 for 100 Bra.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 14, 2016, 11:01:12 pm
Okay, so absolutely bare minimum needed IMO. Taking numbers from the air, since I have no possibility to test these formulas in practice, obviously. It's only a proposition.

Craft Weapon Accuracy: + Firing Accuracy * 0.2 (this makes the bonus a major one for cannons, small for missiles).
Craft Dodge (in effect, a flat minus to ufo's hit chance): + Reactions *0.25 (halves hit chance for normal UFO, if you have 117 Reactions, before any craft dodge bonus. Low enough to be acceptable even for the clumsiest of crafts, but can make a major difference for hi-end crafts).
Craft Approach/Disengage Speed: x/sec, where x now is 0.25, and I think it could be 0.1+(Bravery *0.004), giving 0.14 for 10 Bra, 0.26 for 40 Bra, and 0.5 for 100 Bra.

Accuracy and dodge are done.
Currently with hardcoded magic numbers... I could make them configurable relatively easily, but I see little point in that at the moment. Maybe after a few first tests.

About approach/disengage speed... wtf is that even? I haven't looked at it yet, but what is the general idea and what does vanilla do at the moment? Does it somehow decide when and if the UFO is outrunning the interceptor? Cos that's the part I never understood :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 14, 2016, 11:35:10 pm
Well, you can build only one Access Lift, and nobody is asking why? :)

Probably because they're only ever bad news bears as opposed to pretty much every other structure in the game.  :P

Also no secondary attributes for the pilot stats?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 15, 2016, 12:10:36 am
Also no secondary attributes for the pilot stats?

I think it's still up for discussion. Any ideas?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on August 15, 2016, 12:15:46 am
Can the crew needed go down if you have enough AI and automation researched?  a fighter run by an actual pilot would likely be superior, especially if the pilot is good.  I'd think an autopilot would have at most 50% in the stats, unless there was research for learning AIs.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Drasnighta on August 15, 2016, 01:44:05 am

About approach/disengage speed... wtf is that even? I haven't looked at it yet, but what is the general idea and what does vanilla do at the moment? Does it somehow decide when and if the UFO is outrunning the interceptor? Cos that's the part I never understood :)


The speed is normally set at a constant, and its how much time it physically takes you to close with the UFO into firing range once you have Intercepted it on the Combat Screen.

It makes a big difference when you're packing Short Ranged Weapons and the Enemy has Long - because it dictates how many shots the enemy gets as you struggle to get it into Range...

Same with Disengaging...  Both when a UFO outruns you and when you click "Disengage", its going to be how many parting shots the bastard gets before you bug out.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: The Think Tank on August 15, 2016, 08:10:51 am
In explaining, I meant on this forum, about WHY ONLY THREE??? ;)
Leave that to me, I can come up with some good arbitrary explanations for why there are limitations. For sick bays the explanation could be a limitation of power, as it would be easy to presume a surgery room requiring more constant energy (for healing your runts 24/7 and maybe your wounded pilots if that ever becomes a thing) than another room like Stills and cargo holds. Just a thought. Hopefully that helps a little!
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 15, 2016, 12:37:05 pm
Craft Approach/Disengage Speed: x/sec, where x now is 0.25, and I think it could be 0.1+(Bravery *0.004), giving 0.14 for 10 Bra, 0.26 for 40 Bra, and 0.5 for 100 Bra.

Current approach speed is 2 and current disengage speed is 4.

There is a small (but possibly quite annoying) issue when the speed is not a round number.
The UFO, depending on interception speed user option, can move quite irregularly (e.g. with speed 1.5, it would move 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 9, 10, 12, etc. units of distance/pixels).
Also, the non-beam projectiles would have very minor visual glitches... impossible to spot, if you don't know what you're looking for... but still there.

I will make the speed curve/function "more discrete", so that we don't have these issues, i.e.:
- average pilot bravery 20 or less = half the speed (appproach 1, disengage 2)
- average pilot bravery between 21 and 79 = normal speed (appproach 2, disengage 4)
- average pilot bravery between 80 and 89 = 50% increase in speed (appproach 3, disengage 6)
- average pilot bravery 90 or more = double the speed (appproach 4, disengage 8 )

Okay, so absolutely bare minimum needed IMO. Taking numbers from the air, since I have no possibility to test these formulas in practice, obviously. It's only a proposition.

Craft Weapon Accuracy: + Firing Accuracy * 0.2 (this makes the bonus a major one for cannons, small for missiles).
Craft Dodge (in effect, a flat minus to ufo's hit chance): + Reactions *0.25 (halves hit chance for normal UFO, if you have 117 Reactions, before any craft dodge bonus. Low enough to be acceptable even for the clumsiest of crafts, but can make a major difference for hi-end crafts).

As for accuracy and dodge, I think the maximum bonus values are just right.
But I would also like to see negative bonus for crappy pilots, so I made the formulas a bit more complicated:

Original formula:

Accuracy bonus:
firing=40 => 8 %
firing=55 => 11 %
firing=70 => 14 %
firing=120 => 24 %

Dodge bonus:
reactions=40 => 10 %
reactions=56 => 14 %
reactions=72 => 18 %
reactions=100 => 25 %

New formula:

Accuracy bonus: (Firing - 55) * 0.4
firing=40 => -6 %
firing=55 => 0 %
firing=70 => 6 %
firing=120 => 26 %

Dodge bonus: (Reactions - 55) * 0.6
reactions=40 => -9 %
reactions=56 => 0 %
reactions=72 => 10 %
reactions=100 => 27 %

All attributes are taken without armor modifiers.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 15, 2016, 01:43:46 pm
New formula:

Accuracy bonus: (Firing - 55) * 0.4
firing=40 => -6 %
firing=55 => 0 %
firing=70 => 6 %
firing=120 => 26 %

Dodge bonus: (Reactions - 55) * 0.6
reactions=40 => -9 %
reactions=56 => 0 %
reactions=72 => 10 %
reactions=100 => 27 %

All attributes are taken without armor modifiers.

I'm not sure it's a good idea to add negative modifiers; I just planned to tweak weapon accuracies a bit. But it saves a lot of time, so why not.
But it's a good idea to take unmodified values. Planned to do some pilot armor, but it's much more trouble than it's worth.
In general, it's all great!
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 15, 2016, 06:01:24 pm
Here's the first GUI idea... any suggestions how to make it nicer/better?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 15, 2016, 06:04:16 pm
I like this, can't think of anything that would be missing.

So, it looks like my archers are going to double as Bonny pilots now. :)

EDIT: I understand dogs can't be pilots? I mean, when they are redone as races, we will be able to exclude them from piloting?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 15, 2016, 06:08:55 pm
I like this, can't think of anything that would be missing.

So, it looks like my archers are going to double as Bonny pilots now. :)

Yeah, I was thinking of this a lot.

The first people are melee beasts (or meatshields) and will not be good pilots.
The last people are usually archers (if the craft has a hatch on the top).
The people in the middle (especially autogunners or snipers with a medikit) would do best pilots... but I would have to do another GUI to select pilots by hand and remember them in a save... so I just said to myself, frick it, if anyone complains we can still change it :) The last people/person is not the worst... they should anyway be the last to step off the craft... you want your pilots alive :)


EDIT: I understand dogs can't be pilots? I mean, when they are redone as races, we will be able to exclude them from piloting?

Correct.

Attribute "allowPiloting" on soldier type. Default is true.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 15, 2016, 08:24:09 pm
Also no secondary attributes for the pilot stats?

I suggested Reactions and Bravery as secondary characteristics for Aim and Dodge bonuses respectively.


Would it be difficult to designate 'roles' for ships with interception capabilities and multiple Hand slots?

For example you have a Gunner slot which governs the Accuracy bonus, and a Pilot slot which governs the approach speed and Dodge bonus.

It is a small thing admittedly, but would be a nice touch.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 15, 2016, 08:29:31 pm
Would it be difficult to designate 'roles' for ships with interception capabilities and multiple Hand slots?

For example you have a Gunner slot which governs the Accuracy bonus, and a Pilot slot which governs the approach speed and Dodge bonus.

It is a small thing admittedly, but would be a nice touch.

I'd be happy to have the entire goddamn bridge, but first we would need that "custom stats" feature. :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 15, 2016, 08:30:08 pm
Yeah, I was thinking of this a lot.
 The last people/person is not the worst... they should anyway be the last to step off the craft... you want your pilots alive :)

Forgot to tell you, but I came up with the same idea independently :). Craft deploys were long crafted with Pilots being the last guys on the craft in mind (that's why last hand on the Airbus spawns near the console, etc.). So it's all cool :) I especially like the way some ships may need multiple pilots! Um, but whose stats are taken into account? The best of all pilots? (that'd be the best I think, so multi-pilot ships would have an advantage - select a specialist with high bravery, another one with high Firing, and the last one with high reactions!)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 15, 2016, 08:36:01 pm
Forgot to tell you, but I came up with the same idea independently :). Craft deploys were long crafted with Pilots being the last guys on the craft in mind (that's why last hand on the Airbus spawns near the console, etc.). So it's all cool :) I especially like the way some ships may need multiple pilots! Um, but whose stats are taken into account? The best of all pilots? (that'd be the best I think, so multi-pilot ships would have an advantage - select a specialist with high bravery, another one with high Firing, and the last one with high reactions!)

Currently, the skills of all pilots are averaged.

Maximum from all pilots is also a good idea... I'll let people respond what they think would be better for the game (not better for the player, since that's clear).

Would it be difficult to designate 'roles' for ships with interception capabilities and multiple Hand slots?
For example you have a Gunner slot which governs the Accuracy bonus, and a Pilot slot which governs the approach speed and Dodge bonus.
It is a small thing admittedly, but would be a nice touch.

It's not difficult to implement.
It's difficult to display/put it somewhere on the GUI(s)... if you prepare good mockups, we can discuss it further.

EDIT:

- [DONE] Soldiers as pilots
- [DONE] Exclude a soldier type from driving
- [DONE] Unhardcode approach/disengage speed per ship ..per pilot(s)?

The rest will take longer, as my holidays are slowly coming to an end.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 16, 2016, 12:40:18 am
I have removed the already implemented features from the list and moved them to a new section below.

Thank you for your hard work!
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 16, 2016, 02:21:21 am
Currently, the skills of all pilots are averaged.

Maximum from all pilots is also a good idea... I'll let people respond what they think would be better for the game (not better for the player, since that's clear).

It's not difficult to implement.
It's difficult to display/put it somewhere on the GUI(s)... if you prepare good mockups, we can discuss it further.

EDIT:

- [DONE] Soldiers as pilots
- [DONE] Exclude a soldier type from driving
- [DONE] Unhardcode approach/disengage speed per ship ..per pilot(s)?

The rest will take longer, as my holidays are slowly coming to an end.

If specific pilots are assigned and mandatory, the best stat amongst the pilots makes the most sense.

Also it should be possible to build Slave AI pilot modules; the basic Slave AI would be baseline, conferring no especial bonuses or penalties, and it could be later upgraded into ones that feature bonuses to dodge, aim, etc, with adequate research into related technologies (AIs/materials/ship designs/tech). A maxed out Gal will always be better than even the best Slave AI module.

As to the GUI, what I would do is simply add X slots to the Pilot window, each with a button titled Assign Pilot or Assign Gunner, where X is the number of pilots and gunners required. Clicking on the slot allows you to assign a gunner or pilot from any Hand on the ship (they'd be displayed in a table listing the relevant attributes/stats), or to assign a Slave AI pilot module in storage at the base.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on August 16, 2016, 03:34:29 am
Will shooting down shipping give stat increases to the pilots?

Also, we'll need a commendation for aces.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 16, 2016, 08:14:06 am
We need Commendations for many things, as of now, the only section of Commendations that is done well is kills/captures (even if comm. for grenade kills doesn't seem to be working). The rest is a hardcoded mess, not really working outside of vanilla.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on August 16, 2016, 04:21:08 pm
Cool stuff! We're moving well into a RPG territory!

The "pilots are the last deployed" thing is going to mess me up though. Normally my last people are snipers with the best firing accuracy I can get (good!), little regard for bravery (if you berserk all alone on top of the Bonny, there's nobody to hurt, so I don't care much compared to frontlines) and low reactions (if you've got good ones, you are at worst in the midfield. Long Range reaction firing is useless since snap accuracies decrease so much with range. If snipers could effectively reaction snipe, that'd be different...).

How about checkmarks in the crew list allowing you to pick your pilots?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 16, 2016, 04:32:08 pm
The "pilots are the last deployed" thing is going to mess me up though.

Good! :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: legionof1 on August 16, 2016, 05:10:26 pm
It would be a sorta relative error wouldn't it? Those hands that one assigns to craft (outside of pre training facilities portion of the game) would not have negatives if my memory is accurate. Engagement speed would be the most influential stat but only if forced into range disadvantage. Dodge matters only for reducing recovery time of prolonged engagements, something one should avoid anyway. So long as your pilots can shoot reasonably well  everything else can be compensated for outside of combat. Unless craft get considerably more fragile to enforce dodge need but then you risk player craft get deleted by damage range rng. Losing more then a few craft is potentially crippling for player progress/enjoyment.

Pilots is a really cool feature with potential but lacks sufficient impact if you can compensate for all but one stat check with marginal effort/playing the air game like we already do. Other then the need a butt to fly craft thing which I'm all for. Mystical vanishing pilots in case of ground attack was suspension of disbelief junk.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: ivandogovich on August 16, 2016, 05:30:28 pm
Thoughts on Piloting:

Frankly I don't think I'll worry too much about who is piloting my dropships.  I don't intend for them to lead the assault to begin with.  So keeping snipers at the rear for their topside duties on the Bonny is fine.  The Bonny just shoots a bit better in a dogpile. 

What I will do, however, is train better pilots for leading interceptors and other craft.  The Jetbike will get someone good, as will any tough ships designed to tank damage.  Those High Damage ships like Brave Whalers will need high accuracy to try to get as many of their missiles on target as possible, etc. 

I think this means, I'll keep Civilian ships flying a lot longer and continue to let my interceptors do solo missions on those small crews.  There is lots of accuracy/reaction/bravery training potential in those missions.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 16, 2016, 07:28:37 pm
Cool stuff! We're moving well into a RPG territory!

The "pilots are the last deployed" thing is going to mess me up though. Normally my last people are snipers with the best firing accuracy I can get (good!), little regard for bravery (if you berserk all alone on top of the Bonny, there's nobody to hurt, so I don't care much compared to frontlines) and low reactions (if you've got good ones, you are at worst in the midfield. Long Range reaction firing is useless since snap accuracies decrease so much with range. If snipers could effectively reaction snipe, that'd be different...).

How about checkmarks in the crew list allowing you to pick your pilots?

That's essentially what I'm proposing; the whole 'last deployed thing' is pretty clunky/kludgy.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 16, 2016, 08:09:47 pm
In the end it depends if we have a completely new GUI with a dedicated screen and so on.

If we do, then pretty much anything is possible, including having dedicated roles sitting at their own consoles or whatever. But it would probably be a major task.

Also, I am afraid we can't really go too far without adding more skills. And that would be an even greater task.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 16, 2016, 08:39:37 pm
OK, I'll add:

1. new flag on craft to decide whether to take average or max stat (if multiple pilots)

2. ability (and necessity!) to choose pilots... except for case, when selected crew size is equal to amount of required pilots (all will be selected automatically... hopefully useful for interceptors)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 17, 2016, 09:11:55 am
1. new flag on craft to decide whether to take average or max stat (if multiple pilots)

I just did that and realized that it is stupid during testing.
If you need for example 2 pilots... one of them has max stats and second has min stats... the max stats of the first pilot would be used and second pilot would make no difference. That defies the purpose of requiring a second pilot.
So, I will revert the change and use average stats as per now.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 17, 2016, 10:06:10 am
Good enough for me. So far implementation seems succesful.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 17, 2016, 07:31:15 pm
2. ability (and necessity!) to choose pilots... except for case, when selected crew size is equal to amount of required pilots (all will be selected automatically... hopefully useful for interceptors)

Looks OK?

Code: [Select]
      STR_ADD_PILOT: "Add a pilot"
      STR_REMOVE_ALL_PILOTS: "Remove all pilots"
      STR_SELECT_PILOT: "SELECT A PILOT"
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on August 17, 2016, 07:59:46 pm
Very cool! Will compile again today or Friday to try!
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Stoddard on August 18, 2016, 04:13:41 am
I just did that and realized that it is stupid during testing.
If you need for example 2 pilots... one of them has max stats and second has min stats... the max stats of the first pilot would be used and second pilot would make no difference. That defies the purpose of requiring a second pilot.
So, I will revert the change and use average stats as per now.

As i first read the topic I thought there's no need for averaging at all - highest piloting-related gal supplies the approach-dodge related skills, the other is the gunner, so god help her. Same if there's more than two slots, only it would  be necessary to split them by type - how many pilots, how many gunners, maybe average piloting among the pilots, split guns and their chance to hit among the gunners. Or just average too for the first step. Slot assignment is automatic in order of bravery. Simple, eh? And no need for any bridge UI.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 18, 2016, 09:40:45 am
If we start dividing them into pilots and gunners, why not also add navigators, technicians and maître de cabin? ;) And of course one pilot must be the captain and the other one "number 1".
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 18, 2016, 09:50:27 am
If we start dividing them into pilots and gunners, why not also add navigators, technicians and maître de cabin? ;) And of course one pilot must be the captain and the other one "number 1".

Because it's kind of silly to have the ace pilot's terrible accuracy mess with the ace gunner's dead on aim, or vice versa in terms of piloting, and because shooting and piloting are the two skills actually being tested/utilized by the game.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: niculinux on August 18, 2016, 10:04:25 am
My 2 cents; personally i won't add more personnel categories, otherwise the game would become anothe game, also being more complex. Pilots are fine as now, these are featured also in ufo: alien invasion so it's nice to have that feature in common :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 18, 2016, 11:32:34 am
Because it's kind of silly to have the ace pilot's terrible accuracy mess with the ace gunner's dead on aim, or vice versa in terms of piloting, and because shooting and piloting are the two skills actually being tested/utilized by the game.

Depends how the craft is controlled. What you say is true for a craft that has separate turrets, but we don't have such crafts. In a 2-seater, like attack helicopter, cooperation between pilot and gunner is important; gunner's terrible accuracy does mess with ace pilot's aim, since the gunner can't take full advantage of pilot's actions and keeps fucking up engagements.
If a craft is designed to take full advantage of ace's stats, it's one-seater.
Also, regarding the 'take best stats' system, consider this: if we have a 2 seater, and one guy is a perfect pilot and the other perfect gunner, all is fine. However, it comes apart when you simply put there a single ace (with all stats maxed) and the other guy serves just to fill the quota. No; the system of average stats is better, since it doesn't create silly situations like these. You can have both 'ace' one-seaters and lumbering multi-seaters, which require multiple aces to get similar levels of performance. All is good, since pilots-wise this favors smaller craft over big, usually more powerful, craft.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 18, 2016, 11:40:02 am
Depends how the craft is controlled. What you say is true for a craft that has separate turrets, but we don't have such crafts. In a 2-seater, like attack helicopter, cooperation between pilot and gunner is important; gunner's terrible accuracy does mess with ace pilot's aim,

Wait what?

Also, the pilot's accuracy should be utterly irrelevant if you have devoted gunners concerned exclusively with the weapon systems. Sure, communication is important, but I don't think this is accurately modeled by the pilot's crappy aim working to the detriment of the gunner's when he has absolutely nothing to do with aiming or firing the weapons.

Averages within roles? Sure.

Averages across roles? Ridiculous.

Should roles exist to model important, fundamental points of delineation? I'd say so. When you have larger ships, you're going to have that kind of delineation. You're more likely to need multiple gunners than you are multiple pilots.

Also AI modules (as in Slave AIs custom purposed for operating the craft and its weapon systems) for piloting/gunning should be a thing.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 18, 2016, 11:43:04 am
So tomorrow I will be sitting in a car, train, another train, tram, bus, plane, train and a bus for about 15 hours...
... which two of the following would you want next?

Code: [Select]
- Terrain destruction by melee
- Environmental effects
- Starting conditions by terrain ... except for allowedCraft, since terrain is unknown at take-off time
- Definable types of Alien Containment
- Alternate vision modes (simple heat and psi vision)

Also, can you tell me more about how should the environmental effects work?
- is it just plain hp damage per turn? or...
- is it definable type of damage? e.g. 50 plasma?
- do armors and resistances count?
- does it apply to civilians and aliens too?
- does it create fatal wounds?
- etc.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 18, 2016, 12:25:15 pm
So tomorrow I will be sitting in a car, train, another train, tram, bus, plane, train and a bus for about 15 hours...
... which two of the following would you want next?

Code: [Select]
- Terrain destruction by melee
- Environmental effects
- Starting conditions by terrain ... except for allowedCraft, since terrain is unknown at take-off time
- Definable types of Alien Containment
- Alternate vision modes (simple heat and psi vision)

Also, can you tell me more about how should the environmental effects work?
- is it just plain hp damage per turn? or...
- is it definable type of damage? e.g. 50 plasma?
- do armors and resistances count?
- does it apply to civilians and aliens too?
- does it create fatal wounds?
- etc.

Terrain destruction by melee looks like an important thing, so we can do away with magic hammers.
But if we're talking about enviro damage, maybe it's better to do 'starting conditions by terrain'.

Second would be taking a stab at enviro effects, not sure what to say. It has to be done well (even by small steps) or not done at all. What do we need:
- Chance to apply damage per turn;
- a 'Weapon' which applies damage (having it as a weapon solves many, many problems IMO, allowing for full definition of everything and keeping crashes at bay, since weapon engine is working). This weapon can be any battletype 1, and auto-hits (yes, I don't have anything against explosions centered on units, if a modder wishes so). Using weapon engine solves most of our problems, as things like armor efficiency and damage type can be defined.
- Hit location (side and bodypart) needs to be rolled for randomly, unless explosive damage
- Toggle who is affected. 0-all (default), 1-player only, 2-player+civvies, 3-player+enemies

Wait what?
Also, the pilot's accuracy should be utterly irrelevant if you have devoted gunners concerned exclusively with the weapon systems.

Depends how abstract is the accuracy stat (very abstract in this case). If aiming involves not only aiming itself, but also pointing the nose of the craft towards enemy's ass and keeping it that way, crappy pilot WILL interfere with gunning efficiency. This would only be untrue for multiple, independent weapon systems. Crafts in this game do not generally seem to be like that.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 18, 2016, 12:30:08 pm
I have doubts about this:

- Hit location (side and bodypart) needs to be rolled for randomly, unless explosive damage

Which location would be hit in case of high temperature? Or toxic gas?
I think this should be definable too.

Also Meridian, I'd be interested in the Alien Containment types. But as a "number three", whenever you get to it.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 18, 2016, 12:35:53 pm
Depends how abstract is the accuracy stat (very abstract in this case). If aiming involves not only aiming itself, but also pointing the nose of the craft towards enemy's ass and keeping it that way, crappy pilot WILL interfere with gunning efficiency. This would only be untrue for multiple, independent weapon systems. Crafts in this game do not generally seem to be like that.

Proper and effective orientation of the craft is more the purview of actual piloting though; if you would include that functionality as a component of firing accuracy it seems like a bit of a stretch. Further, even if we assume that's true, for those ships with say 3+ crew slots (in excess of a pilot or pilot + co-pilot/gunner), we're definitely getting into independent rather than fixed weapon systems; that's like B17 territory.

Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 18, 2016, 12:41:59 pm
Terrain destruction by melee looks like an important thing, so we can do away with magic hammers.
But if we're talking about enviro damage, maybe it's better to do 'starting conditions by terrain'.

Second would be taking a stab at enviro effects, not sure what to say. It has to be done well (even by small steps) or not done at all. What do we need:
- Chance to apply damage per turn;
- a 'Weapon' which applies damage (having it as a weapon solves many, many problems IMO, allowing for full definition of everything and keeping crashes at bay, since weapon engine is working). This weapon can be any battletype 1, and auto-hits (yes, I don't have anything against explosions centered on units, if a modder wishes so). Using weapon engine solves most of our problems, as things like armor efficiency and damage type can be defined.
- Hit location (side and bodypart) needs to be rolled for randomly, unless explosive damage
- Toggle who is affected. 0-all (default), 1-player only, 2-player+civvies, 3-player+enemies

Not sure if I will be able to prescribe the hit location... the rest looks doable.

Last question:
- should this weapon actually create a projectile with animation and sound effects?
- or should I skip that and just do the damage? (in this case I will have more control over the hit location... and probably easier job with "hidden movement" overlay... and it will be instantaneous... waiting a minute until all 80 deep ones and lobstermen get hit may be a little annoying)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 18, 2016, 12:47:50 pm
What about effects that don't specifically target units, like a rain of exploding fireballs? Or the pink desert effect that is already hacked into the game? Should they even be considered as part of it?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 18, 2016, 12:52:04 pm
Last question:
- should this weapon actually create a projectile with animation and sound effects?
- or should I skip that and just do the damage? (in this case I will have more control over the hit location... and probably easier job with "hidden movement" overlay... and it will be instantaneous... waiting a minute until all 80 deep ones and lobstermen get hit may be a little annoying)

Let's K.I.S.S. Skip projectiles, sounds and animations completely, for now at least. While this will limit the uses a bit, these aren't important uses for now, and it can be played with later.

Proper and effective orientation of the craft is more the purview of actual piloting though; if you would include that functionality as a component of firing accuracy it seems like a bit of a stretch. Further, even if we assume that's true, for those ships with say 3+ crew slots (in excess of a pilot or pilot + co-pilot/gunner), we're definitely getting into independent rather than fixed weapon systems; that's like B17 territory.

Show me that B17 in Piratez. About the only craft which we can safely assume has independent turrets is the Conqueror, and there's little sense in adjusting everything for a single craft. Also, where is that 'actual piloting' if not in Firing Acc? It is the general 'attack' stat here, just like reactions are general 'defense' stat and bravery is general 'initiative' stat. If we want to stay on this level of abstraction, without going down into more detailed setups, you have no comparable solution. And more detailed setups would require kicking out the whole super-simple air combat model and replacing it with something else.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 18, 2016, 01:05:55 pm
Show me that B17 in Piratez. About the only craft which we can safely assume has independent turrets is the Conqueror, and there's little sense in adjusting everything for a single craft. Also, where is that 'actual piloting' if not in Firing Acc? It is the general 'attack' stat here, just like reactions are general 'defense' stat and bravery is general 'initiative' stat. If we want to stay on this level of abstraction, without going down into more detailed setups, you have no comparable solution. And more detailed setups would require kicking out the whole super-simple air combat model and replacing it with something else.

Reactions and Bravery appear to be the 'piloting' stats as they actually govern the piloting functions. Pilots governing accuracy might make sense for 1-2 man interceptors (because small interceptors are more likely to have fixed weapons and responsibilities for piloting and gunning tend to be shared), but not much else.

Also, pretty much any craft that goes beyond the typical 1-2 man interceptor crew (whichever they happen to be) would approach B17 territory. Beyond the 2 man mark, you don't need any more pilots, but gunners? Sure. Also, keep in mind that multi/omni-directional turrets and other forms of non-fixed weaponry don't need to necessarily be massive gunblisters; with future-tech they can actually be quite compact.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 18, 2016, 01:20:13 pm
Reactions and Bravery appear to be the 'piloting' stats as they actually govern the piloting functions.

That's what you say. I don't agree since accurately firing at the enemy is also a function of general 'piloting'.

Pilots governing accuracy might make sense for 1-2 man interceptors (because small interceptors are more likely to have fixed weapons and responsibilities for piloting and gunning tend to be shared), but not much else.
Also, pretty much any craft that goes beyond the typical 1-2 man interceptor crew (whichever they happen to be) would approach B17 territory. Beyond the 2 man mark, you don't need any more pilots, but gunners? Sure. Also, keep in mind that multi/omni-directional turrets and other forms of non-fixed weaponry don't need to necessarily be massive gunblisters; with future-tech they can actually be quite compact.

1-2 man interceptors happen to be the mainstay of this game's fleet. As for bigger craft, they're still quite small and do not posses any independent turrets. If extra crew is needed, their functions are of support nature, like electronic warfare or channeling power between weapons, shields and engines, or other engineering functions. As such they would have the impact on overall performance.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 18, 2016, 08:40:44 pm
That's what you say. I don't agree since accurately firing at the enemy is also a function of general 'piloting'.

Only on strictly fixed weapon craft where an actual gunner is largely superfluous except for controlling when the guns fire.

Quote
1-2 man interceptors happen to be the mainstay of this game's fleet. As for bigger craft, they're still quite small and do not posses any independent turrets. If extra crew is needed, their functions are of support nature, like electronic warfare or channeling power between weapons, shields and engines, or other engineering functions. As such they would have the impact on overall performance.

Why use gals for something so rote that an advanced Slave AI directly integrated with the engineering can almost certainly do better and faster (routing power, jamming, etc)? Hell even piloting and gunning would be put in competition with these things which is why I recommended the option of being able to make AI modules for them.

Further, as stated, futuretech can allow for very miniaturized turrets, so vessel size is irrelevant.

Anyways, that all being said, it seems you're set on keeping things super simplified so this is fruitless.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 18, 2016, 08:50:30 pm
AI modules is what we had from 1994 to 2016... it's like saying " thanks meridian for implementing a feature nobody needs".
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 18, 2016, 08:56:09 pm
AI modules is what we had from 1994 to 2016... it's like saying " thanks meridian for implementing a feature nobody needs".

What if I have a bunch of mouthbreathing rookie retards in several of my many interception/manufacturing bases that are handily outperformed by upgraded pilot Slave AIs?

Like I said earlier, even the best Slave AIs would be outperformed by a (near) fully developed gal, but they would handily beat out pretty much anyone else, and you'd have several upgrade levels, so you don't start out with an effective 130 firing accuracy/90 reactions module (better tech unlocks better AI upgrades).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 18, 2016, 09:08:18 pm
What if I have a bunch of mouthbreathing rookie retards in several of my many interception/manufacturing bases that are handily outperformed by upgraded pilot Slave AIs?

Like I said earlier, even the best Slave AIs would be outperformed by a (near) fully developed gal, but they would handily beat out pretty much anyone else, and you'd have several upgrade levels, so you don't start out with an effective 130 firing accuracy/90 reactions module.

The penalty for absolute rookie is 6%, not 60%... you will not even notice it. Also, who shoots down UFOs in Piratez in the first 6 months?
After less than 10 missions you'll have at least +5% gals aplenty.
AI upgrades? We're talking cosmetic bonuses here... there's no place for splitting them further.

Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 18, 2016, 09:13:01 pm
It's the satellite bases that are of concern where you have garrisons of rookies that have never seen combat (or have done so at most once or twice on base defense); also I don't think the Dojo trains Reactions/Bravery. I suppose it creates a niche for low VDStr, high stat trash from the HQ that are unacceptable for tacticals due to their MC vulnerability, but can be 'retired' to pilot duties.

But if the max penalty is 6% then that's not too bad.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 18, 2016, 09:16:07 pm
You sound almost like hellrazor  :) Definitely try his mod, I think you'll like it.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 18, 2016, 09:41:01 pm
Bah! Hellrazor's mod is dwarven-solid and dwarven-hardcore, but lacks sexy & elegant elven stuff, so maybe it's just not it for Surrealistik :)

As for AI modules - hell yes, Meridian allowed to manufacture soldiers, didn't he? :) Just don't expect dedicated cyborg pilots to come cheap :)

Penalties aren't that bad, but alien craft got buffed, and your craft debuffed (slightly, but it adds up...)

And yes, I intend to keep things super simplified. Because, like I said before, implementing your ideas requires writing a completely new interception model, with gfx, interfaces, indepth mechanics etc. Physics even. Something I don't think we should try. At least not here.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 19, 2016, 10:42:31 am
Exclusion of soldier types from promotions is now possible:

Code: [Select]
  - type: STR_SOLDIER_S
    allowPromotion: false

Technically, these guys are rookies.
Instead of rookie, description STR_RANK_NONE is used everywhere.
For promotion mechanics, these soldiers don't exist... i.e. cannot be promoted and also don't count into number of soldiers when determining promotions eligibility.

Translations:

Code: [Select]
      STR_RANK_NONE: "-"

Should these unfortunates receive commendations or not?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 19, 2016, 10:52:06 am
Should these unfortunates receive commendations or not?

Good question. I guess we can't have it configurable too? :P
If not, then I think yes, they should receive commendations.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 19, 2016, 12:13:25 pm
I agree, commendations seem appropriate for them. Being outside of ranking system does not mean you can't win trophies.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 19, 2016, 02:19:26 pm
[DONE] Alternate vision modes

The current method of spotting, by sight, doesn’t have to be the only one.

Psionic Sense: Used by certain alien races (some of them only use this vision mode, like Celatids). Has a separate, definable radius (generally much smaller than normal vision). Works through walls and such. Does not pick up mechanical units, or units which are defined not to show up on the psi vision. Does not reveal terrain.
Noise: Each unit has a noise level, defined by armour (can be dependent on stats). Each unit also has hearing ability, also defined by armour (and possibly dependent on stats). The higher the noise level, the better the hearing and the shorter the distance, the easier it is to pinpoint an enemy unit’s location. When spotted, a noise marker is placed within, say, 6 tiles of the actual unit, so the unit’s position is only approximately shown. [This entire system is stolen from UNIMOD for UFO: Extraterrestrials.]

Psi Vision

Code: [Select]
  - type: STR_PSI_VISION_ARMOR
    psiVision: 12 # sees everybody through everything at max 12 tiles
  - type: STR_PSI_VISION_IMMUNE_ARMOR
    fearImmune: true

Noise Vision

How about just use motion scanner... it detects movement, which produces noise.

Heat Vision

Code: [Select]
  - type: STR_HEAT_VISION_ARMOR
    heatVision: 60 # 60% of smoke is ignored
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 19, 2016, 02:34:50 pm
Psi Vision

Code: [Select]
  - type: STR_PSI_VISION_ARMOR
    psiVision: 12 # sees everybody through everything at max 12 tiles
  - type: STR_PSI_VISION_IMMUNE_ARMOR
    fearImmune: true

Excellent!
Does it mean that fearImmune: true makes a unit invisible to psi vision?

Noise Vision

How about just use motion scanner... it detects movement, which produces noise.

Yes, it's good enough.
The system I had in mind was a bit more complex, but we can ignore it for now. Maybe some time later.

Heat Vision

Code: [Select]
  - type: STR_HEAT_VISION_ARMOR
    heatVision: 60 # 60% of smoke is ignored

Kewl!

Many thanks.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 19, 2016, 02:39:17 pm
Does it mean that fearImmune: true makes a unit invisible to psi vision?

Yes.
I didn't want to introduce "psiImmune" since "fearImmune" sounds psi-ish enough, mechanical units don't feel fear and the attribute is not used by anyone yet.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 19, 2016, 02:47:47 pm
Holy shit. I mean, holy shit. I feel like I can't fully keep up with all this complexity - I'm still knees-deep in shotguns, and what about my paying job from which I have to steal that time! :)
I surely hope someone is taking notes.

Heat vision? Awesome, and it will see MUCH use. We can't have something as lo-tech and cheap as humble smoke grenade protect against high-tier enemies :)
Psi vision? Doubly awesome. Simple yet perfect implementation.

Q1. Is fearImmune an innate ability of 2x2 units? (I know I can impart/take away this ability with Yankes' commands).
Q2. Does PsiVision in any way interact with normal vision, predator vision, night vision, active camo? (I assume not).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 19, 2016, 03:04:20 pm
Q1. Is fearImmune an innate ability of 2x2 units? (I know I can impart/take away this ability with Yankes' commands).
Q2. Does PsiVision in any way interact with normal vision, predator vision, night vision, active camo? (I assume not).

Q1: no, that's bleedImmune... I specifically took the one, which didn't have hidden defaults... or would you prefer bleedImmune? deleted, I was wrong

Q2: I need to get out of the train soon... I'll respond later :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 19, 2016, 03:30:53 pm
Q1: no, that's bleedImmune... I specifically took the one, which didn't have hidden defaults... or would you prefer bleedImmune?

No, you've made a good choice. fearImmune is something different than effective fear immunity, given by 110+ Bravery, right?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 19, 2016, 04:41:42 pm
No, you've made a good choice. fearImmune is something different than effective fear immunity, given by 110+ Bravery, right?

Q1.
Ehm, so I was wrong... fearImmune does get pre-set for 2x2 units to "true".
Just like bleedImmune, painImmune and zombiImmune. But you can easily override it...

Also, fearImmune is a separate boolean attribute, not affected by Bravery. It was introduced by Yankes and if a unit has it set to true, their morale doesn't drop, ever, regardless of bravery.

Now, I have also used it to grant immunity to psi vision... since it wasn't used in piratez... but if you want a separate flag, no problem to do it.

Q2.
Unit A is looking at unit B.
1. If A and B are same faction, A can see B.
2. Otherwise, if distance between A and B is more than max possible distance (in piratez 40), A cannot see B.
3. Otherwise, if distance between A and B is less or equal to psiVision of A; and B is not fearImmune, A can see B.
4. Otherwise, if it's dark and max visibility of A (based on visibilityAtDark of A, activeCamouflage of B and predatorVision of A) is less than distance between A and B, A cannot see B
5. Otherwise, if it's day (=not dark) and max visibility of A (based on visibilityAtDay of A, activeCamouflage of B and predatorVision of A) is less than distance between A and B, A cannot see B
6. Otherwise, if there is no LoS between A and B, A cannot see B
7. Otherwise, if there is too much smoke between A and B (based on heatVision), A cannot see B
8. Otherwise, A sees B.

Hope I didn't make a mistake there :)
Ask if something looks suspicious.

PS: distances are calculated without considering Z axis
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 19, 2016, 04:45:50 pm
Also, fearImmune is a separate boolean attribute, not affected by Bravery. It was introduced by Yankes and if a unit has it set to true, their morale doesn't drop, ever, regardless of bravery.

This is actually quite useful. A robotic unit should be immune to fear (if it's not too advanced), but it shouldn't necessarily get a big boost to damage when using a handle or other Bravery-based weapon.

EDIT: Added one little thing to the wishlist :)

Quote
Zombification result per target
Zombified humans turn into zombies. But zombified dogs should turn into zombie dogs, REapers into zombie Reapers, etc.

Not sure how exactly it should work, yet.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 19, 2016, 05:51:44 pm
Q1.
Ehm, so I was wrong... fearImmune does get pre-set for 2x2 units to "true".
Just like bleedImmune, painImmune and zombiImmune. But you can easily override it...

That's not a problem. I just wanted a clarification so I KNOW if I have to make an override or not :)

Zombification result per target
Zombified humans turn into zombies. But zombified dogs should turn into zombie dogs, REapers into zombie Reapers, etc.

Isn't it like, splitting hairs? Just make them zombiImmune as the chryssalid is clearly custom-tailored to work on humanoids only.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 19, 2016, 11:06:39 pm
Isn't it like, splitting hairs? Just make them zombiImmune as the chryssalid is clearly custom-tailored to work on humanoids only.

Ugh, yeah, I never knew there was such a flag. :P
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 19, 2016, 11:40:03 pm
Ugh, yeah, I never knew there was such a flag. :P

Even without a flag, 2x2 units can't be zombified.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 19, 2016, 11:41:23 pm
And here it is... the stupidest-est feature I've ever implemented!
(At least I was not bored while traveling.)

Anyway, facilities can now have "prisonType".
0 is default and is reserved for alien containment... only these facilities will show up in "Alien Containment" bar in Base Info GUI.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, ... can be used for all your pervert needs.

Code: [Select]
facilities:
  - type: STR_ALIEN_CONTAINMENT
    aliens: 15
    prisonType: 0 # default
  - type: STR_PRISON
    aliens: 30
    prisonType: 1
  - type: STR_ANIMAL_CAGES
    aliens: 100
    prisonType: 2
  - type: STR_HAREM
    aliens: 10
    prisonType: 3

Items also have "prisonType".
0 is default.

Code: [Select]
items:
  - type: STR_CHRYSSALID_TERRORIST
    liveAlien: true
    prisonType: 0 # default
  - type: STR_GUILD_NAVIGATOR
    liveAlien: true
    prisonType: 1
  - type: STR_BLOOD_DOG_TERRORIST
    liveAlien: true
    prisonType: 2
  - type: STR_MAGICAL_GIRL
    liveAlien: true
    prisonType: 3

Translations (the ones without a suffix are for prisonType = 0):

Quote
# 0 = alien containment
# 1 = prison
# 2 = animal cages
# 3 = harem

#Debriefing
      STR_CONTAINMENT_EXCEEDED: "ALIEN CONTAINMENT LIMITS EXCEEDED!{SMALLLINE}Insufficient containment space at {0}. You must remove excess aliens from containment (who will then die)."
      STR_CONTAINMENT_EXCEEDED_1: "NO MORE ROOM IN PRISON!{SMALLLINE}Ran out of cells in {0}. We must throw excess prisoners out!"
      STR_CONTAINMENT_EXCEEDED_2: "NO MORE SPACE IN THE CAGES!{SMALLLINE}If you don't tidy up in {0}, the animals will start killing each other!"
      STR_CONTAINMENT_EXCEEDED_3: "HAREM IS FULL!{SMALLLINE}Not enough space at {0}. What are you waiting for?"

#Transfer
      STR_NO_ALIEN_CONTAINMENT_FOR_TRANSFER: "NO ALIEN CONTAINMENT FOR TRANSFER!{SMALLLINE}Live aliens need an alien containment facility in order to survive."
      STR_NO_ALIEN_CONTAINMENT_FOR_TRANSFER_1: "THIS IS MADNESS!{SMALLLINE}There are no prison cells at that hideout, Cap'n!"
      STR_NO_ALIEN_CONTAINMENT_FOR_TRANSFER_2: "HOLD YOUR HORSES!{SMALLLINE}There are no animal cages there..."
      STR_NO_ALIEN_CONTAINMENT_FOR_TRANSFER_3: "WHAT?!{SMALLLINE}My virgins are going nowhere!"

#No Containment
      STR_ALIEN_DIES_NO_ALIEN_CONTAINMENT_FACILITY: "Alien dies as there is no alien containment facility"
      STR_ALIEN_DIES_NO_ALIEN_CONTAINMENT_FACILITY_1: "No free prison cells. Hostages were looted and kicked out!"
      STR_ALIEN_DIES_NO_ALIEN_CONTAINMENT_FACILITY_2: "There's no animal cages, we have let them free"
      STR_ALIEN_DIES_NO_ALIEN_CONTAINMENT_FACILITY_3: "The virgins have been deflowered prematurely"

#Manage Containment
      STR_REMOVE_SELECTED: "Remove Selected"
      STR_REMOVE_SELECTED_1: "Ransom!"
      STR_REMOVE_SELECTED_2: "Put to sleep"
      STR_REMOVE_SELECTED_3: "Not a virgin? Sell at slave market!"

      STR_MANAGE_CONTAINMENT: "Manage Alien Containment"
      STR_MANAGE_CONTAINMENT_1: "Manage Prison"
      STR_MANAGE_CONTAINMENT_2: "Manage Animal Cages"
      STR_MANAGE_CONTAINMENT_3: "Manage Harem"

      STR_ALIEN: "Alien"
      STR_ALIEN_1: "Hostage"
      STR_ALIEN_2: "Animal"
      STR_ALIEN_3: "Virgin"

      STR_LIVE_ALIENS: "Live{NEWLINE}Specimens"
      STR_LIVE_ALIENS_1: "Keep"
      STR_LIVE_ALIENS_2: "How{NEWLINE}cute!"
      STR_LIVE_ALIENS_3: "Keep{NEWLINE}for later"

      STR_DEAD_ALIENS: "Rejected{NEWLINE}Specimens"
      STR_DEAD_ALIENS_1: "Ransom"
      STR_DEAD_ALIENS_2: "Ugh,{NEWLINE}ugly!"
      STR_DEAD_ALIENS_3: "Deflower{NEWLINE}now!"

      STR_UNDER_INTERROGATION: "Being{NEWLINE}Studied"
      STR_UNDER_INTERROGATION_1: "Being{NEWLINE}interrogated"
      STR_UNDER_INTERROGATION_2: "In Lab"
      STR_UNDER_INTERROGATION_3: "Being{NEWLINE}deflowered"
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Drasnighta on August 19, 2016, 11:44:23 pm
And here it is... the stupidest-est feature I've ever implemented!


I doubt it'll stay that stupid for long...  There's plenty Stupider and less organizationally useful than this one to come if half of the 'suggestions' on this board are adhered to :D
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Yankes on August 20, 2016, 12:16:33 am
Only thing now we are lacking is custom storage types for not "live" items :>
Like special container for uranium or elerium.

[ps]

because of that I think better would be name this property as "storageType" but this depend if you want do that.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: legionof1 on August 20, 2016, 07:19:31 am
Selective storage is interesting. If used sparingly for like say needing slave housing or fridge for perishable food.  To much storage micro would suck. Already kinda run close to what I find tolerable once the world is covered.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 20, 2016, 09:38:49 am
Selective storage is interesting. If used sparingly for like say needing slave housing or fridge for perishable food.  To much storage micro would suck. Already kinda run close to what I find tolerable once the world is covered.

Oh god no, please!
With 5 different prison types and 10 different storage types, there won't be a place left to build anything else.

My tolerance level is one type of prison with 20+ capacity and 1 type of storage.

Only thing now we are lacking is custom storage types for not "live" items :>
Like special container for uranium or elerium.

[ps] because of that I think better would be name this property as "storageType" but this depend if you want do that.

As it happens, items can take space both in alien containment and in stores at the same time... so (if it would ever get implemented), we would still need two attributes to be backwards-compatible.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 20, 2016, 10:14:42 am
Hmm... I could use that to limit the numbers of slaves and/or HWPs by requiring them to be housed in special buildings, not sure if the mod really needs it tho...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 20, 2016, 10:16:46 am
I'd rather have another Vault than a slave house which can only potentially do the same.

But maybe if we add some slave space to buildings we use anyway...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 20, 2016, 10:17:27 am
Hmm... I could use that to limit the numbers of slaves and/or HWPs by requiring them to be housed in special buildings, not sure if the mod really needs it tho...

How would you do that?
Slaves take negative space, so can't really reach any upper limit.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 20, 2016, 10:38:55 am
Make them 'livingAliens' & need special 'containment' type, then add a facility that is just that.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 20, 2016, 10:42:14 am
Make them 'livingAliens' & need special 'containment' type, then add a facility that is just that.

Ah ok, I thought you were talking about the proposed extra storage types.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 20, 2016, 10:45:33 am
I have to admit, I'm really worried about micromanagement/minutiae getting out of hand.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 20, 2016, 10:51:12 am
True, that's why I'm not sure the mod needs enforcing such limits.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 20, 2016, 12:20:49 pm
Frankly, I think it's mostly for X-Com Files. In Piratez it wouldn't make much sense, since Reticulans and such have been on Earth for centuries, they don't need special accommodation.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: legionof1 on August 21, 2016, 01:40:22 pm
Y'all are probably right, I just like simulation realism a little to much.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 22, 2016, 12:43:03 pm
Quote
Starting conditions by terrain
Terrain can affect starting conditions, just like deployment. Terrain takes preference.

Terrain is not known until post-briefing equipment phase... and even then it is randomly generated.
There is no way of telling/warning the player upfront.

I could do:
1. at craft take off -- check by deployment
2. at craft landing -- check by deployment
3. at map generation -- check by deployment, unless (randomly picked) terrain has a starting condition... in which case it would be taken instead of the deployment

Is this acceptable/useful?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 22, 2016, 02:22:36 pm
Yeah, this complicates matters.

I'm not completely sure at the moment, I think Dioxine has a clearer concept than I. But I guess solution 3 would be best.

By the way: how hard would it be to make a combined effect of conditions by deployment and by terrain? Say for example, deployment forbids pistols and terrain changes all light armours to Maid Outfit, so in the end both conditions apply.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 22, 2016, 03:22:35 pm
Yeah, this complicates matters.
I'm not completely sure at the moment, I think Dioxine has a clearer concept than I. But I guess solution 3 would be best.

Ehm, it's just one solution, with three parts.
I'll wait for Dioxine's feedback too.

By the way: how hard would it be to make a combined effect of conditions by deployment and by terrain? Say for example, deployment forbids pistols and terrain changes all light armours to Maid Outfit, so in the end both conditions apply.

Doable, but I would need to change quite a lot.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 22, 2016, 04:11:45 pm
I'll wait for Dioxine's feedback too.

Ah, right. Now I see what you meant.

Doable, but I would need to change quite a lot.

No worries then, I have no specific requests here (yet).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 23, 2016, 03:10:38 pm
By the way: how hard would it be to make a combined effect of conditions by deployment and by terrain? Say for example, deployment forbids pistols and terrain changes all light armours to Maid Outfit, so in the end both conditions apply.

Also, I finally have a chance to say "told you so!" ...after only 6 months  8)

Hmm I cannot imagine a situation where you'd need multiple enviros per map... Either you're on Mars, or you're not. Either you're underwater, or you're not. How many enviros would one need? 5? 10? If no more than this, combining makes little sense.

EDIT: Also multiple enviros per map can lead to direct conflicts between enviro rules, and unclear preference of armor. Naturally a modder can make it in a way that avoids conflicts, but - this way you can make 500 or more enviro combinations, but with much tighter constraints. If you don't need 500 enviros (combinations), I think it is better to stick to '1 enviro per map' rule, as there will be no conflicts and modding would be much easier.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 23, 2016, 05:52:15 pm
Yeah, right. :) but to lighten it up, I don't consider it an immediate problem, I was just wondering what could go wrong at some point. I already agreed to these limitations back then, so I'm not going to complain.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on August 23, 2016, 07:06:23 pm
Ha! These modders, they always want more... It could make sense to restrict stuff by craft (no tanks in a (air)car, but you can take a parrot or a dog, so barring HWPs isn't so nice.. I guess you could make those soldier types to circumvent the issue), and it does by environments, the combination of the two would be neat, but can probably be worked around, especially with the ability of having soldier "1x1 HWPs" to enable them to get in a (air)car.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 23, 2016, 08:05:27 pm
It's already doable, no extra code needed. You couldn't take a tank into an Aircar, even if you enabled HWP capacity, since 1 seat is required by pilot, and a tank can't be loaded if you have 3 slots left. For the same reason Zepp can take only 3 tanks, despite having 9 HWP capacity.
Adding these pilots really solved a LOT of problems.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 24, 2016, 12:47:17 pm
Let's K.I.S.S. Skip projectiles, sounds and animations completely, for now at least. While this will limit the uses a bit, these aren't important uses for now, and it can be played with later.

How does this look?
EDIT: small updates

Quote
  - type: STR_ENVIRO_CYDONIA
    environmentalConditions:
      STR_FRIENDLY:
        chancePerTurn: 100 # 30 = 30% chance of hitting per turn
        firstTurn: 1 # first turn to apply damage
        lastTurn: 1000 # last turn to apply damage
        message: "STR_LOW_PRESSURE" # code of message to be displayed on "Next Turn" screen (e.g. STR_LOW_PRESSURE = "Extreme low pressure is hurting us.{NEWLINE}Hurry up!")
        color: 29 # color of the message (battlescape palette: 13..16 + i*16)
        weaponOrAmmo: "STR_PISTOL_CLIP" # code of weapon or ammo used for damage calculation
        side: 3 # side to be hit from (-1=random, 0=front, 1=left, 2=right, 3=rear, 4=under)
        bodyPart: 0 # bodypart to be hit (-1=random, 0=head, 1=torso, 2=right arm, 3=left arm, 4=right leg, 5=left leg)
      STR_HOSTILE:
        chancePerTurn: 100
        firstTurn: 1
        lastTurn: 1000
        message: "STR_TICKLE" # The guards' morale is rising.{NEWLINE}Second line...
        color: 45
        weaponOrAmmo: "STR_PISTOL_CLIP"
        side: -1
        bodyPart: -1
      STR_NEUTRAL:
        chancePerTurn: 10
        firstTurn: 1
        lastTurn: 1000
        message: "STR_KILLING_ME_SOFTLY" # The VIP is slowly dying. Hurry up!
        color: 109
        weaponOrAmmo: "STR_GAUSS_PISTOL_CLIP"
        side: -1
        bodyPart: -1
    defaultArmor:
      STR_SOLDIER: STR_SPACE_SUIT_UC
      STR_SOLDIER_S: STR_SPACE_SUIT_UC
    allowedArmors:
      - STR_SPACE_SUIT_UC
      - STR_BIO_SUIT_ADV_UC
      - STR_IRONMAN_ARMOR_UC
      - STR_ANNIHILATOR_ARMOR_UC
      - STR_STEALTH_ARMOR_UC
      - STR_ARRANCAR_ARMOR_UC
      - STR_LOADER_ARMOR_UC
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 24, 2016, 02:32:23 pm
Looks real good! :) Except we don't need that 'ammo', why complicate. Would you really think I'd use weapon + ammo if I can use ammo-less weapon? :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 24, 2016, 02:41:55 pm
Looks real good! :) Except we don't need that 'ammo', why complicate. Would you really think I'd use weapon + ammo if I can use ammo-less weapon? :)

Ammo is optional.

PS: I'd like to see a mission with a single neutral VIP unit with 1000+ armor (i.e. can't be killed by guards by accident) taking constant health damage per turn (i.e. dies for example in 20 turns). The mission objective is to kill all guards, i.e. rescue the VIP :) With nice fat score if you manage to save him.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 24, 2016, 03:52:02 pm
I can already picture it... the VIP runs around, while being pummeled by grenades and heavy gunfire, and you watch it from a distance, laughing your ass off :) Might be good as comic relief if the 'VIP' is some Cute Indestructible Alien Beast. :)

However a rescue mission is a good idea; the problem - it is uncontrollable where the neutral units will spawn.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 25, 2016, 03:33:40 pm
Ammo is optional.

PS: I'd like to see a mission with a single neutral VIP unit with 1000+ armor (i.e. can't be killed by guards by accident) taking constant health damage per turn (i.e. dies for example in 20 turns). The mission objective is to kill all guards, i.e. rescue the VIP :) With nice fat score if you manage to save him.

Attributes "weapon" and "ammo" have been replaced by a single "weaponOrAmmo" attribute.

There are following limitations to environmental conditions:
Quote
   https:// Note: there are limitations, since we're not using a projectile and nobody is actually shooting
   https:// 1. no power bonus based on shooting unit's stats (nobody is shooting)
   https:// 2. no power range reduction (there is no projectile, range = 0)
   https:// 3. no AOE damage from explosions (targets are damaged directly without affecting anyone/anything)
   https:// 4. no terrain damage
   https:// 5. no self-destruct
   https:// 6. no vanilla target morale loss when hurt; vanilla morale loss for fatal wounds still applies though
   https://
   https:// 7. no setting target on fire (...could be added if needed)
   https:// 8. no fire extinguisher

And some screenshots how the user is informed about WTF is going on.

If you have "skip next turn" option turned on, you can still see the message in the hit log.
EDIT: if there is a message to be displayed, the "skip next turn" option will be ignored
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 25, 2016, 10:33:19 pm
- [DONE] Environmental effects
- [DONE] Starting conditions by terrain

Terrain ruleset now also has "startingCondition" attribute.
It overrides the deployment starting condition (after briefing).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 26, 2016, 11:34:22 am
Thanks! I've updated the document.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 26, 2016, 02:03:14 pm
I have a tiny feature request :) Some streamling of the Pedia that'll allow modders to save time and space (and avoid errors), while looking more elegant to the player. In weapon's attacks list, Instead of the current Auto, can we have Auto (x3), or whatever the number of autoshots a weapon fires when used in this mode? The number is the key, extra letters and symbols should be arrangeable as translator wishes.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 26, 2016, 02:06:25 pm
I have a tiny feature request :) Some streamling of the Pedia that'll allow modders to save time and space (and avoid errors), while looking more elegant to the player. In weapon's attacks list, Instead of the current Auto, can we have Auto (x3), or whatever the number of autoshots a weapon fires when used in this mode? The number is the key, extra letters and symbols should be arrangeable as translator wishes.

Yes, no problem.

Code: [Select]
  STR_SHOT_TYPE_AUTO: "Auto (x{0})"
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 26, 2016, 03:38:21 pm
Quote
Terrain destruction by melee
So we could attack walls and objects with melee weapons. Should only work when the tile doesn’t have any units standing on it (unconscious units are ignored).

So, any idea how should this work exactly?

There can be only one unit on a tile (easy)... but there can be several objects to destroy (on a screenshot, should I destroy the wall or the stairs behind the wall?)

Also the objects don't occupy the whole tile... if I aim for the center of the tile, I can destroy for example a stone fence or wooden stairs... but I cannot destroy a wall (since it's not in the center of the tile).

Should I check all 6144 voxels (16*16*24) for a presence of an object? :)
And what if I am elevated... should I check neighboring tile(s) as well?

Or should I trace an invisible bullet and see what it hits? If so, which voxel to take as starting point (e.g. unit's eyes) and as end point (e.g. center of the target tile's floor)?

And what if I am a 2x2 unit (tank or a reaper)... which tile am I even targeting? Or am I targeting both tiles in front of me?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 26, 2016, 03:58:16 pm
Thanks!

Or should I trace an invisible bullet and see what it hits? If so, which voxel to take as starting point (e.g. unit's eyes) and as end point (e.g. center of the target tile's floor)?

And what if I am a 2x2 unit (tank or a reaper)... which tile am I even targeting? Or am I targeting both tiles in front of me?

That sounds like the best solution, since it's proven - trace an invisible bullet, start at shoulders, target centre of floor (I think that's how guns work). I just hope this won't allow to auto-hit enemies as well :)
However, this will have issues with some types of terrain, like farm's fences... which have a hole right where the aforementioned trajectory goes. We might have to go into checking voxels, but a little less than 6144 - I think 3 voxels should do - check 3 voxels in the middle of the wall facing soldier: at 18, 12, and 6 px height. These attacks also start from shoulders. Fire the 'bullet' at the first trajectory that connects. If none of the three connects with anything, use the default behaviour from above... does that make any sense? :)


As for big units, double attack vs. terrain sounds like a super cool feature!
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on August 26, 2016, 04:11:25 pm
Guns already have a way of targeting obstacles, don't they? Like when you click next to a fence, the first thing you hit is the fence. If it is destroyed and you target the same tile, then you hit the floor. And I think if there is an object (something like a chair or tree) it goes before the fence if on your side of the fence, after the fence otherwise and always before the floor?

Any ways, the best is probably to use exactly the same code as you would if firing a weapon for a tile away to pick the target, but to draw the melee animation instead of a bullet, play the melee hitsound and get the weapon's melee damage to determine if the tile is destroyed.

Reapers could attack 2 tiles (or 3 when facing diagonally?) and then we just need someone to go in the AI and allow blocked AI units to clear a path. Or better yet, consider smashing through terrain as valid paths too. Chryssalids or reapers coming at you through walls would be a terrible thing to witness!
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 26, 2016, 04:16:28 pm
Depending on the trajectory you may miss the closest object.

If you had for example that nice farm fence and a tree on the tile (fence being closer to you), your virtual bullet may go straight through the fence and land in a tree.

This is fine when you see a projectile going through the fence... but if you see a sword hack down a tree through a fence...  :o
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on August 26, 2016, 04:31:33 pm
Hum.. good point. Maybe just a list then:

If there is a unit on the tile you face,target that.

Else if there is an object  (wall, fence) between the tile you stand on and the one you are facing, get that.

Else if there is an object (chair, tree) on the tile you are facing, target that.

Else target the floor of the tile itself (you can land on a roof and hammer your way down :))

I think that covers it. Targeting items/bodies lying on the floor wouldn't be useful. We have the execute option on many weapons and destroying loot is not really ever a good idea.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 26, 2016, 04:40:30 pm
Sounds easy, doesn't it :)
I'm fighting a few days with it now... can take a lot more...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on August 26, 2016, 06:04:32 pm
Yes, it is the simplest things (like recognizing that there is something in a picture) that are the worst to implement.

Image/obstacle recognition takes no effort for us because evolution has made us (and many other animals) so good at it despite how complicated it actually is. Now it's a challenge to have a computer do it because we don't even really know how we do it. (What do you mean, how do I know there's a fence in my way? It's right there! Don't you see it?) By opposition, calculus is difficult for most people, but it's surprisingly simple to have a computer do calculus since we have a known set of instructions that we also follow.

Best of luck with it :D
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: HelmetHair on August 26, 2016, 06:24:32 pm
Meridian,

You don't need my praise and encouragment, but here it is anyway!

You can do it, and it will turn out great because you are good at this.

-HH

Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 26, 2016, 08:30:24 pm
@HH: Thanks. That helps.

Also, pilots now can gain experience from dogfights.
Conditions:
- ufo must either crash or be destroyed
- craft must fire at least one weapon at least once
- soldier type must support the training (defined in percentage for each supported stat: firing, reactions and bravery)

Code: [Select]
soldiers:
  - type: STR_SOLDIER
    dogfightExperience:
      bravery: 100 # guaranteed to improve by 1
      reactions: 0 # no improvement possible
      firing: 50 # 50% chance of improvement by 1
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: clownagent on August 27, 2016, 09:40:03 am
So, any idea how should this work exactly?

There can be only one unit on a tile (easy)... but there can be several objects to destroy (on a screenshot, should I destroy the wall or the stairs behind the wall?)

Also the objects don't occupy the whole tile... if I aim for the center of the tile, I can destroy for example a stone fence or wooden stairs... but I cannot destroy a wall (since it's not in the center of the tile).

Should I check all 6144 voxels (16*16*24) for a presence of an object? :)
And what if I am elevated... should I check neighboring tile(s) as well?

Or should I trace an invisible bullet and see what it hits? If so, which voxel to take as starting point (e.g. unit's eyes) and as end point (e.g. center of the target tile's floor)?

And what if I am a 2x2 unit (tank or a reaper)... which tile am I even targeting? Or am I targeting both tiles in front of me?

I think melee attacks should use the target cursor like ranged weapons and not just attack what's in front of them.
This solves the problem with 2x2 units and also makes melee attacks over two tiles possible (for long melee weapons).

P.S. Target cursor for healing items would also be an improvement, because now you cannot heal a unit if there is another unconcious unit on the same tile as the healer.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 27, 2016, 09:52:42 am
Well, for me, the whole point of melee weapons is "not having to target/aim".
That's the only difference between a melee weapon and a ranged weapon with range=1, isn't it?
Giving up the speed of using melee weapons (or healing items like e.g. atom beer) is a no-go for me.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: new_civilian on August 27, 2016, 12:34:22 pm
After seeing all those new features of your exe (Using the nightlies only for a year or so) I only have 1 wish left in life:  ;)

-What about a readme with all the features explained (for average so-far-non-scripting modders) ? :o

I downloaded this thread for reference, ok, but what about an easier way?
Scripting is a chore and a new territory for me and I guess many other modder do feel the same, a detailed readme would help to use your exe better.
A simple txt file. With examples, maybe? You could leave the examples out, but a documentation really would be deeply appreciated.

Thanks for your hard work, Meridian and Yankes. And everyone else involved.


Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 27, 2016, 12:59:01 pm
This topic (https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php?topic=4187) should have all the instructions, or link to the threads with instructions.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: bladum on August 27, 2016, 02:22:03 pm
two ideas:

1) craft acceleration change how fast ufo and interceptor changes distance each other. Same acceleration means same as vanila, max difference means half / double speed of movement during air fight.

2) global intelligence for allies

- Alien will remember any soldier he spots in his field off view for N turns where N = intelligence, other aliens are not aware of these soldiers.
- Alien will make other aliens remember any soldier he spots in his field of view for K turns where K = group intelligence (new alien stat)
- Alien will pass his memory of soldiers to any other alien that is with his field of view for M turns, where M = telepathy (new alien stat, optional, very complex to implement but could be helpfull to create chain of memory strategy for aliens, so xcom can pass grenades and aliens could pass positions of xcom soldiers that way)

So IQ =  5 and Group IQ = 1, means that alien will remember spotted soldier for 5 turns + he will make other aliens remember them for additional 1 turn

Using this engine we could implement standard behavior from X-COM but also bring much more for mods.

Tom
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 27, 2016, 06:34:09 pm
In this example:
Code: [Select]
    dogfightExperience:
      bravery: 20

Would it mean +10 to Bravery each 5 succesful interceptions on average?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 27, 2016, 09:38:08 pm
In this example:
Code: [Select]
    dogfightExperience:
      bravery: 20

Would it mean +10 to Bravery each 5 succesful interceptions on average?

No it goes up only by +1 just like other stats.
Would +5 or +10 be better?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on August 27, 2016, 09:47:30 pm
I think the issue is that bravery only goes up by tens, at least visibly.  I have little idea what goes on behind the curtain.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: HelmetHair on August 28, 2016, 11:29:33 am
I like the idea of a hive mind feature for critters of various sorts.

So more of the hive that is intact, the better it operates and attempts to murder your dudes as they would converge on you attacking like ants and remember your location and if one saw you they all saw you for X turns based on hive size

in the same tact if you kill one of a hive mind creatures it knows where it died and move in angry.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 28, 2016, 02:04:10 pm
No it goes up only by +1 just like other stats.
Would +5 or +10 be better?

Ugh how? Is Bravery no longer going up by 10s only? You need to explain this :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 28, 2016, 10:45:25 pm
Ugh how? Is Bravery no longer going up by 10s only? You need to explain this :)

We can do anything we like. Just tell me.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 29, 2016, 02:24:33 pm
Meridian, can I add an item to the random loot list several times, to make it appear more frequently?

Something like this:
Code: [Select]
        randomizedItems:
            - position: [1, 1, 2]
              amount: 3
              mixed: true
              itemList: [STR_ALIEN_DATA_SLATE, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_AXE, STR_STUN_ROD, STR_MEDI_PACK, STR_ALIEN_ELECTRONICS, STR_PSICLONE, STR_MONEY_BRIEFCASE]
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 29, 2016, 03:10:48 pm
Meridian, can I add an item to the random loot list several times, to make it appear more frequently?

Yes.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 29, 2016, 03:25:17 pm
We can do anything we like. Just tell me.

Well, I'm not very tied up to the concept of bravery increasing in 10s only, but it needs to be consistent - either we have Bravery increasing just like any other stat, or not. If the interceptions can raise it by 1, then everything else (Bravery training from weapons, from resisting Panic) should be raising it by a non-10 number as well.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 29, 2016, 04:18:03 pm
OK, I'll change it to +10 then.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Stoddard on August 29, 2016, 05:16:54 pm
Digging around geoscape code I had an idea come up:

Make craft repair, rearm, refuel manufacturing jobs, if a craft has 'runts required' attr, which tell how many runts are required to attain the stock repair, etc speed. Since there's crew unification proposal listed in the wishlist, make this number equal to crew number, so that the crew has some work to do after a flight. Ofc if someone got wounded, you either have spare hands on the base, or the craft isn't getting ready in time.

Add some runt space in the hangars which enables these task types. Autogenerate tasks upon arrival to cut down clicks. To be extra nasty, disallow repairs without workshop-type space, maybe for severe damage only. Maybe fuel repairs with some kind of 'spare parts' item or just plastasteel/electronics/chemicals/scrap/booze.

Now I'm not sure if there's support to locking down runt space to be used for only one class of work. I think not, but on the other hand, each hangar will provide  IIRC at most 6 runt slots, so it wouldn't blow up total runt space much. Ofc if you squat this  space for other manufacturing, craft isn't getting serviced either. Could be used for "prisoner processing" and "employment interviews" on outpost-style bases that lack other runt space.

I'd write this myself, but I don't have time right now, neck deep in AI API. So I'm just posting this here to not forget it.

Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 29, 2016, 05:31:45 pm
As I said in the second post, I don't like Solar's "crew unification" proposal ("everybody can do everything"), I won't be implementing that. We'd have a completely different game if we did that.

As for your proposal:
 - repairing/rearming/refueling craft by actual manufacture jobs seems like micromanagement hell to me
 - what I would probably consider acceptable (for me) is having a possibility (not necessity) to assign engineers to repair manufacture project (or any other blocking task, doesn't have to be via manufacture GUI) to help speed up the repairs; I wouldn't touch rearm and refuel as they can't be sped up as far I understand
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 29, 2016, 05:54:07 pm
If we want to do anything here, there should be an option to add 'ground crew' to a craft, up to 20 Runts maybe?
0 Runts: 25% repair speed (chance to repair per hour), no refuel, no rearm
Each extra Runt: +7.5% repair speed (up to 150% repair speed at 20 Runts).
3 Runts minimum always required to rearm and refuel craft? (so the real min. repair speed is around 50%); these Runts are assigned automatically & required to keep the craft running (in other words, can't build/buy/move a craft if 'Not Enough Runts Available For Ground Crew').
This should be done by a separate UI in the craft, & has nothing to do with Workshops at all. Presence of Runts is all that's required. Such runts are unavailable for manufacturing.
I know this is a little complicated but frankly, I'd hate to see ground crew roles relegated to some Workshop project; it's just not the right place. Adding Runt Space for hangars to patch it up is also bad IMO, as it will confuse the game as if it should show Workshops, or Vessels on R-Click.
With my solution, a single Outpost could service up to 3 Hangars (barely), but no Soldiers... Ugh, adding pilots into the equation, 2 crafts for Outpost seems like maximum realistic capacity. But that's just an Outpost!

This solution also goes towards my vision of bases requiring actual support personnel (or at least unoccupied Soldiers) for tasks like watching radars or manning turrets :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 29, 2016, 06:11:13 pm
Now, that's more like it.

It can be nicely optional, fine-tuned via rulesets and compatible with vanilla. It scales, but doesn't overscale. It doesn't pollute manufacturing either.

I'd scale the repair speed a bit differently, but that's just a minor thing.

One thing that doesn't work well here (considering how runts are used at the moment), is the automatic assignment of runts. For 99.999% of the time you will have no free runts at the base. All will be either doing something you need or working their asses off for dolaros in the workshops (unless you play badly). Maybe we can do something about that, maybe not.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 29, 2016, 07:05:11 pm
I think the function is more or less fine. It accounts for diminishing returns just fine. However it caps max ground crew at 4x min; I'd rather go for x5...x8 (with maybe 65% repair rate at min crew, 200% at max). Unless I'm reading it wrong.


EDIT:
Also, important lore fact: all hulls are self-regenerating so some base repair, even at 0 ground crew, should be going on.

Also I don't know what's worse; getting messages that the craft requires some min ground crew, or removing min crew requirement altogether and getting messages that the craft cannot be reloaded/refuelled due to the lack of it.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 29, 2016, 07:56:55 pm
That sure looks familiar:

Being able to allocate Runts to expedite craft repair might be a good idea; if you need to limit the rapidity of repairs and the opportunity cost of not manufacturing goods with those Runts is thought to be an inadequate limiter by itself, merely cap the number of Runts that can work on each ship.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 29, 2016, 08:05:04 pm
Yes, and that's the reason why new ideas should go to new threads :)
To be honest, "Suggestions on how to improve the mod" thread should have been closed long ago... nobody can track that... well, I can't.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 29, 2016, 09:15:59 pm
That sure looks familiar:

You weren't the first guy here to come up with this, sorry for raining on your parade.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 29, 2016, 09:21:01 pm
You weren't the first guy here to come up with this, sorry for raining on your parade.

Well if so, I didn't see it (like some of the others in this thread evidently). Either way that I'm not some kind of idea pioneer on the subject per your claim is not something I'm distraught over. It's simply a feature I would have liked to have noted more interest in earlier, especially with pre-Crab repair times being such a PITA.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 29, 2016, 09:35:44 pm
If you really have to know, it wasn't worth commenting for the dual-pronged reasons of being a well-known improvement idea, and the reality that it needed an attention of a coder to happen (which just happened).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 29, 2016, 09:42:00 pm
If you really have to know, it wasn't worth commenting for the dual-pronged reasons of being a well-known improvement idea, and the reality that it needed an attention of a coder to happen (which just happened).

I didn't specify anything about having to know why the suggestion wasn't acknowledged; posts get missed or overlooked; that's not something I'm concerned with so much as the absence of implementation.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 29, 2016, 10:53:57 pm
Melee terrain damage

OK, so "simple" bullet tracing (even with several different trajectories) didn't work well.

I will try more complicated rules, depending on:
a/ direction you are facing
b/ elevation
c/ actual presence of an object (west wall, north wall, object or floor)
d/ plus a few selected trajectories (or better said only target voxels, even without LoF in some corner cases) per above hopefully covering majority of normal-shape walls and objects

Attached are the targeted objects in order per case.
The diagonal objects may be obscured by far walls, in which case (very rarely) they wouldn't be destroyed.

0 = N  = up-right   ... 1. north wall (origin tile), 2. object (from tile in front of you)
1 = NE = right      ... 1. west wall (from right-hand tile), 2. north wall (origin tile), 3. object (from diagonal tile in front of you), unless blocked by 2 other unreachable walls?
2 = E  = down-right ... 1. west wall (from tile in front of you), 2. object (from tile in front of you)
3 = SE = down       ... 1. north wall (from right-hand tile), 2. west wall (from left-hand tile), 3. object (from diagonal tile in front of you), unless blocked by 2 other unreachable walls?

4 = S  = down-left  ... 1. north wall (from tile in front of you), 2. object (from tile in front of you)
5 = SW = left       ... 1. west wall (origin tile), 2. north wall (from left-hand tile), 3. object (from diagonal tile in front of you), unless blocked by 2 other unreachable walls?
6 = W  = up-left    ... 1. west wall (origin tile), 2. object (from tile in front of you)
7 = NW = up         ... 1. north wall (origin tile), 2. west wall (origin tile), 3. object (from diagonal tile in front of you), unless blocked by 2 other unreachable walls?

Floors will be completely ignored.

For elevation 0-11 (maybe 0-9 ? or maybe 0-X ?) the current-Z-level tiles are considered.
For elevation 12-23 (maybe 10-23 ? or maybe (X+1)-23 ?) the tiles one level higher are considered.

X could represent "chest/arms level", something like unitStandingHeight-8 resp. unitKneelHeight-8.
Probably best whatever is used for bullet LoF check.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on August 29, 2016, 11:09:16 pm
That seems sensible. I'm impressed you even went with NE-SE-SW-NW wall destruction as well.

It would have expected to require that you face the wall you want to destroy directly and can only destroy objects to the NE-SE-SW-NW of you if there are no walls in the way.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 29, 2016, 11:16:40 pm
That seems sensible. I'm impressed you even went with NE-SE-SW-NW wall destruction as well.

It would have expected to require that you face the wall you want to destroy directly and can only destroy objects to the NE-SE-SW-NW of you if there are no walls in the way.

Well, without those cases, it would be almost the same as what the Hammer does already today.
If I can't make it work, maybe I'll decrease the scope to N, E, S and W only and basically make hammers without projectiles :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on August 29, 2016, 11:22:23 pm
Hammer + the possibility to destroy objects in diagonals - the fake 100% chance to hit enemies that hammers have currently. That's already quite an improvement imho.

Good luck with your even more ambitious project :D

Maybe there should be a way to sponsor your coding work along with your LP'ing! (As soon as I get rid of that stupid bandwith limit, I'm gonna binge watch some LPs! :D I should have preemptively registered on patreon so I can later watch my gal's VIP adventure, instead of abandoning the LP.)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 30, 2016, 01:03:39 pm
As I said in the second post, I don't like Solar's "crew unification" proposal ("everybody can do everything"), I won't be implementing that. We'd have a completely different game if we did that.

Yes, I know it's bold, for a lack of a better word... But that's the direction Apocalypse took, and I absolutely loved it. Of course they didn't really introduce this mechanics, because the game was only half done, but still it promised!
And it's more justified in Piratez than classic X-Com.

Anyway, great job with the terrain destruction! This should streamline the game a lot!

As soon as I get rid of that stupid bandwith limit, I'm gonna binge watch some LPs! :D

Bandwidth limit? Where are you Arthanor, Northern Sudan? O_o
Last time I heard these words was at least 10 years ago...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on August 30, 2016, 05:27:04 pm
Nope, in the great Canadian metropolis of Montreal. I thought  these limits were a thing of the past about 10 years ago , but then they came back. Most large ISPs have them for fiber op or cable connections.

For some unknown reason, you can get fast Internet but with a limit of 20 Go, which you would exceed in little time. Then you can pay even more to up (or get rid of) that limit, or sign up for even more expensive, faster Internet with a bit higher limit. I have a big enough limit not to worry when I'm home but there is still a limit. I'm on an extended work trip now so I have to deal with what's provided.

This random little piece of info was brought to you by the Canadian heritage minutes. I hope you don't mind the off-topic too much, Meridian.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 30, 2016, 07:02:36 pm
Thanks Arthanor, a friend of mine from Canada mentioned something like this, but I thought he wasn't being serious. :)

Anyway, back on topic: I am considering adding more psionic powers to the Great Duumvirate of Panic and Mind Control. I mean powers that actually require new code and cannot be hacked with damageAlter and such. Do you people think it makes sense? And Meridian, does it clash with the "no AI modding" principle?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on August 30, 2016, 07:36:43 pm
As a Torontonian, at the center of the Canadian universe, pre-war cradle of the great MegaPrimus, I've no such issue with bandwidth caps despite having Bell as my ISP.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Eddie on August 30, 2016, 07:46:24 pm
If we get the "runts for craft repair" thing, can I ask for a small feature? I would appreciate the option to make the repairs cost money or resources.

With free repair, the economic decision for air battle has been to not use the expansive missiles and rather let your ship get damaged. This is kind of immersion breaking for me, as in real life you would mostly do the opposite. I know Dioxine just posted the lore is ships regenerate by themselves to explain the "free-repairs" feature, doesn't mean I like it.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 30, 2016, 08:04:00 pm
They do repair themselves (this is canonic lore from XCOM Interceptor), I never said for free :) That's sorta integrated into Maintenance costs; however an ability to set extra repair costs would be cool. However this would even further penalize air combat in favor of just waiting for stuff to land...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Eddie on August 30, 2016, 08:50:59 pm
Air combat could be buffed by making battles at shot down UFOs easier (well, you already have the exploding power sources) or making battles at landed UFOs tougher.

Best idea I've had so far for tougher landed UFOs: Have a timer during which you have to get a gal inside the enemy UFO, or it will power up engines and weapons and destroy your ship that is a sitting duck on the ground. Even better would be to have objectives inside the UFO that you have to destroy to disable the timer, for example a computer in the engine room or a computer on the bridge (destroying either will stop the timer). Plasmacutters would be a really useful item for these kind of missions.

If you had that, the next feature would be: an option to bombard a landed UFO to turn a "landed" site into a "crashed" site, so you can choose your risk/reward.

Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 30, 2016, 08:56:35 pm
Best idea I've had so far for tougher landed UFOs: Have a timer during which you have to get a gal inside the enemy UFO, or it will power up engines and weapons and destroy your ship that is a sitting duck on the ground.

Well Supply Ships sort of work like this already.
But... more timed missions? I am torn between groaning at this and giggling at the players' frustration! Because it makes sense.

If you had that, the next feature would be: an option to bombard a landed UFO to turn a "landed" site into a "crashed" site, so you can choose your risk/reward.

That would be more complicated and hard to integrate...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 30, 2016, 09:14:05 pm
Best idea I've had so far for tougher landed UFOs: Have a timer during which you have to get a gal inside the enemy UFO, or it will power up engines and weapons and destroy your ship that is a sitting duck on the ground.

I'd welcome such a feature with open arms, as it penalizes passive play. Maybe not as punishing as insta destruction (your ship can get airborne fast, and later return for troops), but you should be grounded for, like, 1hr, while the UFO escapes.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on September 04, 2016, 04:50:21 pm
Anyway, back on topic: I am considering adding more psionic powers to the Great Duumvirate of Panic and Mind Control. I mean powers that actually require new code and cannot be hacked with damageAlter and such. Do you people think it makes sense? And Meridian, does it clash with the "no AI modding" principle?

Well, you didn't tell us much.
I'd need a bit more info about what should this new thing be to tell anything reasonable.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on September 04, 2016, 05:09:45 pm
Well, you didn't tell us much.
I'd need a bit more info about what should this new thing be to tell anything reasonable.

Well, I'm not completely sure yet, I'd have to design it first. And I don't really want to work on this if it's not going to get implemented... Well, the vicious circle. :)

I am thinking about things like this (cherry-picked from various threads):

- Psi Strike: The target must take a psionic test. Failure will result in health damage, ignoring armor. The test is based on a roll taking into account the psionic strength of the victim and the psi power (Str * Skill) of the user. Mindfray deals no fatal wounds.
- Psi Stun: Like Psi Strike, but deals stun damage. (Intended to be weaker.)
- Psi Disturbance: Reduce the target's TUs, Stamina, Reactions, Firing, Throwing, Strength and Melee by a percentage, depending on test result.
- Inspire Unit: Boosts morale and heals Fatal Wounds. This power will never fail and the effects are based on the user's psionic strength and skill.
- Psi Scan: The unit gets PsiVision equal to their Psi Strength/10, until the end of turn.
- Blind: The target's vision range decreases until end of their turn, often to 0.
- Suggestion: Point any location on map. The target unit will now think it's extremely important to get there (a temporary node with very high Importance, which only works on one alien).

But these are just examples, not my actual ideas to implement.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on September 04, 2016, 05:43:25 pm
Doable.
And if you don't need them in addition to Mind control and Panic... but instead of them (i.e. redefine what these two do, per weapon), I wouldn't have to touch the AI.

Mind control could be replaced by: psi strike, blind
Panic could be replaced by: psi stun, disturbance

The rest doesn't need to be available to AI I guess?
"Use" (on psi weapon, added by Yankes) can be replaced by: inspire, suggestion
"Use" (on motion scanner item type) can be replaced by: psi scan

PS: btw. please think also about if these ideas add anything (new) to the game... I won't be implementing any more features like the Alien Containment types, which are there just for decoration
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Yankes on September 04, 2016, 05:52:56 pm
First two are already doable using "use" attack of psi-amp, its first use normal psi attack calculation and if success then treat psi-amp as normal weapon hit.
With scripts (around 3.4) some of rest will be available. Instead of normal attack you will execute some script that can alter state of unit in any way you want.
At end of each round another script will be run to revert changes done by this attack (if needed).

Only last point it out of scope for now.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on September 07, 2016, 09:03:50 pm
How hard would it be to allow renaming HWP-type units? It doesn't have to be all that involved, just alias would do fine, if I use up my Reaper to manufacture Mutated Reaper, and lose the one I renamed to Teddy Bear, I won't cry, I can just rename him again.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on September 07, 2016, 09:47:22 pm
How hard would it be to allow renaming HWP-type units? It doesn't have to be all that involved, just alias would do fine, if I use up my Reaper to manufacture Mutated Reaper, and lose the one I renamed to Teddy Bear, I won't cry, I can just rename him again.

Short answer: on a scale from easy to hard... really hard! (read until the end for one possible option)

Long answer:

In Geoscape, soldiers are represented as individual objects with attributes (e.g. tu, stamina, days wounded, number of kills, etc.). Each soldier is handled separately, you cannot make an action on multiple soldiers at once... the only action which can involve multiple soldiers at once is buying them (because they don't exist yet as individual objects).

Scientists, engineers, HWPs, weapons, aliens, etc. are represented as a string identifier with a number (e.g. "STR_PARROT: 5" ... that's literally the only thing the game knows about all your parrots in geoscape). You can sell 5 parrots at once, you can equip 5 parrots at once, you can move 300 engineers from one base to another at once... because they are just a number. That's why Solar's "everybody can do everything" request makes no sense... imagine having to click 300-times on 300 different lines in a transfers table to move all 300 engineers to a different base (same as you have to do for soldiers today).

In Battlescape, based on rules of the object/hwp type (note the difference: not object/hwp, but object/hwp type)... a HWP is constructed from thin air into a BattleUnit, which is an object and has properties (remaining TUs, morale, left-hand weapon, backpack size, thermal vision and so on...). After the battle this object (which could potentially have a name during battle) is deconstructed into thin air and all that remains from it is "+1" for the hwps of the same type already in the base.

Summary:
- everything, which is not a soldier (or a craft) cannot have properties (like name), because it doesn't really exist as individual (in geoscape)... i.e. with current architecture/game design hwps cannot have names.

Options:
1. instantiate hwps also in geoscape... this would require quite some amount of work (guesstimate of 100+ hours) and would totally change the architecture... if SupSuper, Warboy or Yankes changed anything in OXC/OXCE, I would not be able to merge it... because there would be nothing left from original code to merge into... so anything even remotely related, I would have to implement separately myself...

2. I can give you an option to rename your hwps during mission briefing... and keep their names during a single mission... however the name would be lost after the mission once the hwps are dematerialized into a number

3. instead of using hwps, why not use soldier types? I added support for "manufacturing" them, added things like inability to be a pilot or exclusion from promotion system... there's almost nothing more preventing you from using a separate soldier type as a hwp type... and if there is, we can probably add it.... and they can have names... you can even specify/force the name during manufacturing as I demonstrated in the "bruce willis" example somewhere earlier

-----

EDIT: for those people who didn't understand the technical bla bla, imagine it like this:

1. your stores don't actually contain 5 heavy plasmas, 4 flares and 2 tanks... they contain only a sheet of paper which says there are 5 heavy plasmas, 4 flares and 2 tanks here... but you will not find them :)

2. your alien containment doesn't actually contain sectoid Alex, floater Bob and snakemen Cyril and David... it contains only a list saying there are 2 snakemen, 1 floater and 1 sectoid in here... but you won't see them anywhere like in a zoo

3. your living quarters actually do contain 20 soldiers (Anna, Beatrice, Claudia, Diana, Eve, Filomenia, Georgia and Helene)... and you can go and chat with them... but they don't contain any scientists or engineers; just a sheet of paper which says there are 200 engineers and 15 scientists living here
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on September 07, 2016, 10:05:50 pm
So it is as I feared. I'd naturally go for Option 3, but there are some caveats.
Namely, the constraints of deployment. Take the Bonaventura. In theory, you could hold up to 4 tanks there (4x4 is less than 18), BUT. The deployment can handle only two 2x2 units. There is physically no space inside the craft to spawn more, and either the game won't spawn them, or straight out crash if I add more than 2.
However a possible solution seems to present itself. If it was possible to mark an armor as "is HWP", you could limit the numbers of 'tank-soldiers' to the current HWP allowance. Being able to manufacture soldiers, and naturally armors, we could do away with old HWP system completely - tank soldier is hwp chassis, which has each of its variants produced as armor (giving the tanks flexibility the people have been asking for). So in short we need, I think:
- Armor flag 'isHWP' so the soldier wearing it counts towards craft's HWP limit.
- Allowed soldier types flag for Starting Conditions
Piloting is thankfully already handled :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on September 07, 2016, 10:10:33 pm
Yes, all that can be done... I have a bit different idea, but with basically the same end effect.

Believe it or not, it is much easier to implement 2x2 soldiers than it is to give a name to a parrot...  :P
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on September 07, 2016, 10:13:59 pm
You probably want to avoid deployment trouble auto-magically, eh? Do your worst, if you insist :)

EDIT: to clarify my statement, if we go that way, I intend to completely remove any old-style HWP units from X-Piratez and change every last one of them into a soldier type.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on September 07, 2016, 10:19:34 pm
You probably want to avoid deployment trouble auto-magically, eh? Do your worst, if you insist :)

Nah, just instead of "isHWP" on armor, the "size" attribute is already enough to do calculations/limitations on total space available/used.
And to simulate current limit on allowed hwps per craft (due to floor plan limitations), I would introduce a limit per soldier type per craft... that's actually on my todo list for several months now.

Or, if I really find some time... I'll do a visual assignment of soldiers to craft, i.e. you put them on a specific place too.
That's also on my list... but almost on the very bottom, but it would allow you to reorder soldiers during briefing too, which is something I always wanted.

EDIT: to clarify my statement, if we go that way, I intend to completely remove any old-style HWP units from X-Piratez and change every last one of them into a soldier type.

It will require work too... and will probably not happen until my Xmas holidays to be honest.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on September 07, 2016, 11:42:57 pm
And to simulate current limit on allowed hwps per craft (due to floor plan limitations), I would introduce a limit per soldier type per craft... that's actually on my todo list for several months now.

Have mercy! You know what pain in the ass it would be to custom-tailor everything for EACH craft? :) Just maybe make count every size 2 armor as not only taking 4 space, but also a HWP slot. It's way easier on the modder.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on September 07, 2016, 11:48:02 pm
(https://orig09.deviantart.net/95d8/f/2015/274/5/d/mercy___king_harkinian_meme__by_philipscd_idiot-d9bl1sp.png)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on September 08, 2016, 12:14:56 am
So will it be possible to put a Gal in a mini mecha or something and have them count as a HWP?  Another option could be to set a limit on specific specialty costumes, like the ghost, and make them extremely powerful to compensate for the limits.  I'm sure that last one will have people out for my blood.  :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: ohartenstein23 on September 08, 2016, 12:44:29 am
I never knew I wanted this until now, but I need gals piloting Sectopods.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on September 08, 2016, 01:29:21 am
PS: btw. please think also about if these ideas add anything (new) to the game... I won't be implementing any more features like the Alien Containment types, which are there just for decoration

Yes, that's why it's just some musings right now... I don't have specific plans, but they'll probably come up as I introduce new factions, etc.

I never knew I wanted this until now, but I need gals piloting Sectopods.

It's completely natural. :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on September 08, 2016, 02:12:30 am
I never knew I wanted this until now, but I need gals piloting Sectopods.

It has been long planned, and Yankes' code support appeared long time ago too, but there was no time for it on this year's schedule. So this topic changes little, although can maybe offer better support. What it is about, it is about making HWPs/Aux units less hackish and more fun.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Yankes on September 08, 2016, 03:19:54 am
Nah, just instead of "isHWP" on armor, the "size" attribute is already enough to do calculations/limitations on total space available/used.
And to simulate current limit on allowed hwps per craft (due to floor plan limitations), I would introduce a limit per soldier type per craft... that's actually on my todo list for several months now.
Solder with 2x2 size already are handled as HWP in case of craft space.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Stoddard on September 11, 2016, 02:54:14 am
I was looking into stacked maps as a side project and the main problem is that I can't see how it should be defined in the rulesets.

I'd like it not only to enable skyscraper-type maps, but also replace alien base assaults with something resembling Siberian Base mission, while being random enough so as not to require reworking it all. So the higher levels have to be defined somehow, but not very rigidly to allow the randomness.

Any ideas? And, if I just stack the existing .maps on top of each other, wouldn't the AI be confused?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on September 11, 2016, 03:10:30 am
Any ideas? And, if I just stack the existing .maps on top of each other, wouldn't the AI be confused?

It would be confused in the sense they wouldn't patrol between floors, but that's not a problem, because this behaviour is disabled anyway when they spot an enemy. So they can chase after you even if you change the floor.

It's a very interesting project of yours, thanks for taking a stab at this. And can you explain more what you are trying to achieve, regarding the Syberia Base example? Some sort of a mix between horizontal and vertical map composition?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on September 11, 2016, 03:12:07 am
I know for sure that many z-levels, especially with lots of objects, inflict a heavy burden on the CPU.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Stoddard on September 11, 2016, 10:15:31 am
It would be confused in the sense they wouldn't patrol between floors, but that's not a problem, because this behaviour is disabled anyway when they spot an enemy. So they can chase after you even if you change the floor.
Well, that's great, no problem then.

It's a very interesting project of yours, thanks for taking a stab at this. And can you explain more what you are trying to achieve, regarding the Syberia Base example? Some sort of a mix between horizontal and vertical map composition?

I don't like how base assauts begin in the 'lifts'. Two-stage missions too, they are the remnant of '94 engine limits, and not some ingenious game design.

Siberia base is the only example to the contrary and I like it much better.  But it's a custom-designed terrain, thus there can't be anything other than snow and shacks on the top.

For the bases I think two map layers generated as they are now, one facilities, the second the terrain, then linked in certain places will do.

But there should be other applications of the multilayer map support, those which I can't imagine right now, but which might require something more than just two layers and merging top layer blocks with blocks defined to accompany specific blocks (facilities) at the bottom.

So I ask for any obvious ideas that are generalizations of the above and also how to better represent this in the rulesets.


I know for sure that many z-levels, especially with lots of objects, inflict a heavy burden on the CPU.

Yes, it's most noticeable when defending a built-up base (and also mansions). But since it's quite rare, I think there's not enough pressure to optimize the drawing. I for one thought about it, but decided that two rare mission types isn't worth reading that much code. When it ceases to be rare I'm sure someone will get fed up and will fix it.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on September 11, 2016, 10:21:14 am
Beach landings with underwater and above ground fighting!

Basically a tftd terror but on top of/next to a tftd USO mission. That's the most obnoxious I can think of, given that certain armors can only fly underwater, you gotta draw bubbles and different explosions underwater, etc.

Similar but upside down for underwater base assaults where the water is on top and the ground below.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on September 11, 2016, 10:46:42 am
Yes, it's most noticeable when defending a built-up base (and also mansions). But since it's quite rare, I think there's not enough pressure to optimize the drawing. I for one thought about it, but decided that two rare mission types isn't worth reading that much code. When it ceases to be rare I'm sure someone will get fed up and will fix it.

It's rare, because it's slow, not the other way around :)
And I think it might get even slower with OXCE 3.3.
I heard DarkDefender has tried optimizing it (link (https://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/openxcom?date=2016-06-14#l142)), but I never saw anything...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on September 11, 2016, 11:08:36 am
Forced movement and teleportation mechanics would be highly desirable.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Stoddard on September 11, 2016, 02:37:07 pm
It's rare, because it's slow, not the other way around :)
And I think it might get even slower with OXCE 3.3.

Why? What's coming?

I heard DarkDefender has tried optimizing it (link (https://colabti.org/irclogger/irclogger_log/openxcom?date=2016-06-14#l142)), but I never saw anything...

A pity they didn't post the patch. Interesting to know what approach did he take.

Forced movement and teleportation mechanics would be highly desirable.

The map generator can't do this sorry. Though a map paying homage to the Infernal Runner would be much fun :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Yankes on September 11, 2016, 04:36:44 pm
Why? What's coming?
I added new light system that allow walls/objects block light.

code: https://github.com/Yankes/OpenXcom/tree/develop
look: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9oNroA3feEw (this is version "0.1")

But this will not affect drawing performance only recalculation of light.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on September 11, 2016, 09:04:13 pm
The map generator can't do this sorry. Though a map paying homage to the Infernal Runner would be much fun :)

I'm referring to mechanics for items/weapons.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Stoddard on September 12, 2016, 04:57:24 am
I'm referring to mechanics for items/weapons.

Sorry I misunderstood. Can you provide a couple of examples of what this should do?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Surrealistik on September 12, 2016, 10:50:14 am
Telekinesis that would allow you to push or pull an enemy unit for example.

Teleportation items/armours that would allow you to well... teleport, not unlike the personal teleportation devices in Apocalypse.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on October 16, 2016, 10:30:15 am
A small request (for deployments):
maxShade: use night/day cycle, but never set greater shade than this (useful for eg. city maps)
minShade: use night/day cycle, but never set lower shade than this (useful for eg. underwater missions, smog-ridden cities)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 16, 2016, 10:52:56 am
A small request (for deployments):
maxShade: use night/day cycle, but never set greater shade than this (useful for eg. city maps)
minShade: use night/day cycle, but never set lower shade than this (useful for eg. underwater missions, smog-ridden cities)

Noted.
Will take a little while though, I have currently almost zero time.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on October 17, 2016, 06:37:41 pm
I uploaded the document, added Dioxine's request and also one from me: an option to spawn more than one UFO per map.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 17, 2016, 06:46:12 pm
I uploaded the document, added Dioxine's request and also one from me: an option to spawn more than one UFO per map.

Isn't this implemented already?
I believe Hobbes has been adding multiple craft per map in Area 51 already... "addCraft" command in mapScript.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on October 17, 2016, 08:07:09 pm
Isn't this implemented already?
I believe Hobbes has been adding multiple craft per map in Area 51 already... "addCraft" command in mapScript.

Not exactly... Both get spawned, but with only one tileset active, so one UFO is broken. (Haven't checked the craft yet.)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 26, 2016, 05:38:16 pm
A small request (for deployments):
maxShade: use night/day cycle, but never set greater shade than this (useful for eg. city maps)
minShade: use night/day cycle, but never set lower shade than this (useful for eg. underwater missions, smog-ridden cities)

Done.

Code: [Select]
alienDeployments:
  - type: STR_MY_ALIEN_DEPLOYMENT
    shade: 7        #existing, default -1
    minShade: 4     #new, default -1
    maxShade: 9     #new, default -1

Shade is first filled from globe shade level.
If "shade" is defined, then "shade" is applied.
Otherwise if "minShade" is defined, then "minShade" is applied (if currentshade < minshade).
Otherwise if "maxShade" is defined, then "maxShade" is applied (if currentshade > maxshade).

Exception: for second stage of a 2-part mission, globe shade is ignored and "shade" is always used. minShade and maxShade are also ignored.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on October 26, 2016, 09:05:39 pm
Cool, thanks!
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on October 30, 2016, 02:48:15 am
Addendum to the surrender mode: a flag is needed to exempt an unit from surrender calculations. Some units will never surrender & never trigger surrender, but should surrender once their masters do (drones, reapers). Not sure how this will work out, though (I can see funny situations arising), so I'd appreciate input.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 30, 2016, 04:58:06 pm
Addendum to the surrender mode: a flag is needed to exempt an unit from surrender calculations. Some units will never surrender & never trigger surrender, but should surrender once their masters do (drones, reapers). Not sure how this will work out, though (I can see funny situations arising), so I'd appreciate input.

So, if I understand correctly, these units are basically auto-surrendered from the start already (only waiting for others to surrender too).

New attribute on unit level introduced: autoSurrender, default false.
"autoSurrender: true" also sets the "canSurrender" to true... otherwise it makes no sense... so no need to define canSurrender, if you already defined autoSurrender.
Also, this new attribute works for all surrender modes different than 0... currently 1, 2 and 3.

Code: [Select]
units:
  - type: STR_DRONE
    autoSurrender: true
  - type: STR_REAPER
    autoSurrender: true

Btw. why not post directly in the Surrender thread?

Also, surrender mode = 3 doesn't work properly at the moment (in version 2016-10-27)... the units will surrender properly, but debriefing will ignore them. I will fix that in the next version.
Furthermore, with surrender mode = 3, I cannot distinguish surrendered units from psi-captured units... so both will count as just surrendered for scoring purposes... and I changed the scoring back to vanilla values because of that.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: KateMicucci on October 31, 2016, 12:32:05 am
Early game we can't shoot down UFOs, so it would be nice if we could get a notification when they land and also set it to only notify us when UFOs land.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on October 31, 2016, 02:06:49 am
That might be more useful with faster ships, early on, we mostly follow and hope we get lucky before running out of charge. Trying to get to a landing before they take off is unlikely with the airbus and the other early options have few seats.  Alternately, we can guess where it's headed and try to beat it there.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on October 31, 2016, 02:49:13 am
Well, if you got notifications of that sort, what the hell would you need radars for? Also there are more early air combat options now.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on October 31, 2016, 02:55:59 am
Well, if you got notifications of that sort, what the hell would you need radars for?

I thought the proposal was to get additional notification when a detected ship lands, making it unnecessary to manually observe the ship. But I think it would take away some fun.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: KateMicucci on October 31, 2016, 07:47:13 am
Well, if you got notifications of that sort, what the hell would you need radars for? Also there are more early air combat options now.

Radars have nothing to do with it. I just want a notification when the UFO dot turns from red to green.

As it is now we've got to drop from 1/day time compression to 5/min time compression while the UFO buzzes around, waiting for it to land, if it ever does. For the first couple months of game time it's tedious.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on October 31, 2016, 12:24:40 pm
As it is now we've got to drop from 1/day time compression to 5/min time compression while the UFO buzzes around, waiting for it to land, if it ever does. For the first couple months of game time it's tedious.

So that's what I said.
I guess it wouldn't be hard to code. But frankly I doubt there would be much interest. i don't understand what the problem is with not having Geoscape on 1 day speed all the time, since I rarely do so anyway. And judging from watching other people play, I still play pretty fast. (Though I guess Bloax probably is much faster still, knowing him. :P)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on October 31, 2016, 11:56:13 pm
Radars have nothing to do with it. I just want a notification when the UFO dot turns from red to green.

As it is now we've got to drop from 1/day time compression to 5/min time compression while the UFO buzzes around, waiting for it to land, if it ever does. For the first couple months of game time it's tedious.

Ah. I get it now. I see no use in it for myself, but it's a legitimate concern you're voicing.
1) It has to be switchable in game option
2) not popping up if the UFO is being chased by your craft already;
3) not popping up if time is 5 minutes or less (or maybe 1 minute or less?), UNLESS it's beyond your current vision range (so you can manage 2 interceptions on opposite sides of the globe in later game).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on November 01, 2016, 01:25:23 am
Suggestion: vampiric weapon/ammo. Vampiric weapon adds settable amount of HP, stun, morale, energy for each point of damage caused.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Yankes on November 01, 2016, 01:33:12 am
Suggestion: vampiric weapon/ammo. Vampiric weapon adds settable amount of HP, stun, morale, energy for each point of damage caused.
already in my plans
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 01, 2016, 01:53:49 am
already in my plans

As a script, or normal ruleset flag?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Yankes on November 01, 2016, 02:07:56 am
Script as always. When I add script that can damage unit (that is my primary goal) then adding script that will "heal" other unit is trivial.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 02, 2016, 08:03:10 pm
Here's a new one, based on my discussion with Dioxine some time ago:

Commendation Bonuses
Commendations give various bonuses to units, for example Wrestler increases Strength (+1 per skull) and Nightingale increases night vision (+1 per skull colour). This would give the commendations some actual meaning, allow for advancement of units who are maxed out, and also help personalize units further.

EDIT: And a way to deal with late armour production:

Multi-stage production automatization

The ability to automatically build earlier stages for items that require parts that are also produced, like armours in Piratez. So you can make such an armour even if you don’t have the parts, and the parts get built first if possible.

EDIT: And something that we've discussed before, too:

Minimum Reaction Accuracy setting
An option to set a minimum accuracy where reaction fire is used. This is to prevent short-range weapons from firing at long distances, at 0% chance to hit.
This wasn't necessary in vanilla, but with vision range 40 and weapons like the Sawed-Off...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on November 02, 2016, 10:08:19 pm
Minimum Reaction Accuracy setting
An option to set a minimum accuracy where reaction fire is used. This is to prevent short-range weapons from firing at long distances, at 0% chance to hit.
This wasn't necessary in vanilla, but with vision range 40 and weapons like the Sawed-Off...

Best to pass the reaction check altogether if accuracy below that threshold, so we won't stop each tile when an enemy with throwing knives is at the other edge of the map...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 02, 2016, 10:20:09 pm
Best to pass the reaction check altogether if accuracy below that threshold, so we won't stop each tile when an enemy with throwing knives is at the other edge of the map...

Yes, good point. I'll add it to the file.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on November 04, 2016, 09:43:48 am
Commendation Bonuses

Nice idea.

Multi-stage production automatization

How about not creating such projects in the first place.
I don't feel the need to clean up your mess to be honest... keep it simple (one of very important rules of game design) or suffer the consequences.

Minimum Reaction Accuracy setting

I'll have a look...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: stepbystep on November 04, 2016, 07:40:59 pm
How about not creating such projects in the first place.
I don't feel the need to clean up your mess to be honest... keep it simple (one of very important rules of game design) or suffer the consequences.

I second this.

If the reason is adding complexity, then there is no point in automating it as that would remove the complexity and invalidate the effort made to implement the manufactoring process.

If the reason is supporting the concept of "equipment upgrade" a solution could be having all equipment be manufactured from materials and also possible to brake apart into a fraction of the materials used to build it.
So to buld an upgraded armor you would have to either:
- build a new item from raw materials.
- disassemble old armors for components and thne assemble upgraded armors from those materials plus something else.

This way you need to execute (as a player) a multi-step process only when really upgrading your current gear (the original concept is still there) but you don't have to if you are rich and can build from just raw materials.
Also assembly and disassembly lines could run at the same time if correctly timed as the raw materials extracted from disassembled items feeds the upgraded items assembly line.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 04, 2016, 07:42:07 pm
Yeah, I think I went too Dwarf Fortress on this one. :P I think I'll remove it.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on November 04, 2016, 11:07:47 pm
I think upgrading armors is a nice feature. If you have properly working components in a fine suit of armor, especially those that require rare stuff to make, why couldn't you use them. There are reasons you can come up with, but they're more justifications of a bad system than foundations of a good one.

The alternative would be to simply implement rare armor deconstruction. Much like you can get fancy bits off enemy armors, you could have projects to reclaim fancy bits off your own armor. With some minor losses if need be, to represent losses due to shaping/cutting pieces and whatnot on assembly. And that might be much easier to implement.

One thing though, in Piratez I had different bases manufacturing the armors I needed for annihilator, to spread the work and because certain armors needed certain facilities,  not all of which were at my main manufacturing base. Obviously, you can't quite do that if you assemble everything at once.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on November 05, 2016, 03:00:07 am
Some of the armors and weapons make sense for the upgrade system, the Tac Vest being needed for the Tac line of armors makes sense, each one is just a normal vest with more pieces added to it.

Maybe what we need is the option to skip the upgrade side completely, and just use the base materials to make the selected end item, along with the capacity to hide project options in order to keep the clutter down.  We do that right, and it doesn't matter as much about the project bloat, since you can just hide the ones you don't currently care about.

So still able to upgrade normally, with the capacity to just build the end project if you have the resources ready, would probably take the same amount of time, just less micromanagement, and the capacity to hide projects you don't want to see
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: ohartenstein23 on November 05, 2016, 04:13:57 am
The hiding of projects is already in OXCE+, just right-click an entry from white (normal) to blue (new) to purple (hidden).  If you want, making a mod to skip from base materials to armor is possible with a bit of math, Meridian even created a sample of it for Annihilator suits.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on November 05, 2016, 01:06:50 pm
Minimum Reaction Accuracy setting
An option to set a minimum accuracy where reaction fire is used. This is to prevent short-range weapons from firing at long distances, at 0% chance to hit.
This wasn't necessary in vanilla, but with vision range 40 and weapons like the Sawed-Off...

Active when UFO extender accuracy option is turned on.
If accuracy is 0% or if target is out of range, don't react.

Please help with testing.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 05, 2016, 01:12:55 pm
Active when UFO accuracy option is turned on.

Just to clarify: that's the UFO Extender accuracy, right?

If accuracy is 0% or if target is out of range, don't react.

It's certainly a big step forward. But I still think the next step should be a settable threshold fwor reaction fire. Accuracy 5% isn't noticeably different from 0%. If I could set it myself, I'd probably go for something like 30%, but someone else might prefer 20% (because of different personal preferences or different weapons choice), so I don't think enforcing a particular threshold would be a good idea.

But it's great news, I'm excited to try this, even if for now it's 0% only.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Starving Poet on November 06, 2016, 01:33:25 pm
Does this also fix the bug where firing while berserk could shoot outside of your maximum weapon range?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on November 06, 2016, 03:24:54 pm
Does this also fix the bug where firing while berserk could shoot outside of your maximum weapon range?

No.

Commendation Bonuses
Commendations give various bonuses to units, for example Wrestler increases Strength (+1 per skull) and Nightingale increases night vision (+1 per skull colour). This would give the commendations some actual meaning, allow for advancement of units who are maxed out, and also help personalize units further.

When you have some time, could you write what kind of bonuses would you like for each award?
Just to help me mentally prepare for the complexity (or lack of it).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 06, 2016, 08:07:28 pm
When you have some time, could you write what kind of bonuses would you like for each award?
Just to help me mentally prepare for the complexity (or lack of it).

Gladly!

Here's a list of suggestions - for the current commendations and some potential new ones, too. (Co-produced with Dioxine.)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Foxhound634 on November 07, 2016, 12:28:56 am
Two questions about heatvision

1) Since night vision is already visually represented by a green palette across the screen, is heatvision also represented by an orange palette?

2) Also, given that heat vision detects heat, shouldn't it be able to detect invisible units (at least units without any special countermeasures, such as catgirls)?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: KateMicucci on November 07, 2016, 11:23:17 pm
Quote from: Foxhound634
1) Since night vision is already visually represented by a green palette across the screen,
Is it? Everything looks normal to me. How do you see in green?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Foxhound634 on November 07, 2016, 11:34:06 pm
Is it? Everything looks normal to me. How do you see in green?

https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4819.msg71179.html#msg71179

Check the video there
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on November 08, 2016, 02:10:13 am
I'd suggest HUGE bonuses for the missing in action and the going out in a blaze of glory commendations... to be removed or at least changed when we finally get the ability to upload our gal's brains and clone new bodies.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on November 08, 2016, 01:42:06 pm
What would the dead need bonuses for? :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Drasnighta on November 08, 2016, 05:14:49 pm
What would the dead need bonuses for? :)

There are no Challenge Coins in Hell...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Zharkov on November 08, 2016, 06:42:23 pm
There are no Challenge Coins in Hell...

As far as I know, there definitely are...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 08, 2016, 07:49:05 pm
Once Hell is ready as a mission region, we might be getting our dead girls back. :P
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on November 08, 2016, 08:41:26 pm
Once Hell is ready as a mission region, we might be getting our dead girls back. :P
Get the "Devil's Coins" and use them + a cloning machine to revive one girl? That'd be AWESOME :D
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on November 08, 2016, 10:17:50 pm
Mostly it's an excuse to troll the player.  But if/when we get effective cloning tech and mind uploading, bringing back dead heroes for rum and brawling becomes a thing.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on November 11, 2016, 07:58:27 am
I figure it's been long enough to justify a second post.

How hard would it be to allow swimming? basically just walking into water, if the water is supposed to be extremely cold ending the turn in it would cause stun, possibly a lot, if you kneel in water, basically diving, you take stun at the end of the turn.  Visibility would probably go down, more so if you dive, but you'd be pretty hard to find both ways.  Suits that would logically be heated could be immune to the cold damage, and those that have an air supply could be immune to the diving damage.  Mostly it just seems odd that the gals can't swim in shallow water.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on November 11, 2016, 08:45:14 am
The whole way maps are constructed makes it really hard to pull off. Not even mentioning you'd need to add underground levels to all maps with water... Ugh, just no. Swimming can be simulated (see swimming pool facility), but a special map is needed for that.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 11, 2016, 11:43:01 am
Your idea Khade also seems to touch the "tile causes damage" idea, which is a valid and potentially useful thing.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on November 11, 2016, 12:53:28 pm
I understand that if you hit a single spot on the bottom floor with enough explosives, it can dig a hole deep enough to provide cover.  It's still on the same floor though.  This is base game I'm remembering, but somehow I suspect that still works.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on November 11, 2016, 06:37:09 pm
Um, no. You cannot dig into floor.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 11, 2016, 07:18:13 pm
I think you could modify byte 48, aka Terrain_level, to shift the tile down, but it wouldn't allow for digging anyway.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on November 11, 2016, 08:57:50 pm
Heh, geo effects are a good idea to have come from this at least.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on November 17, 2016, 10:43:01 am
Gladly!

Here's a list of suggestions - for the current commendations and some potential new ones, too. (Co-produced with Dioxine.)

Can bonus from commendations go above the maximum?
I.e. let's say I reach 100 bravery in normal way... can I get to bravery 150 if I have +50 bravery from commendations?

Btw. I vote for "yes".

Probably shouldn't allow to go below minimum?
I.e. with bravery 10 and -50 from commendations... I should probably still have 10 bravery. I guess negative values would not go well with various formulas.


- stat gain is doable
- armor gain is doable
- camo, anticamo, NV gain is doable

- damage of certain type reduction is probably doable, but I will probably interfere with Yankes' plans... and also why reduction? I thought these would be bonuses... also how should I display this to the user?? I can think only of description in the pedia... which might not be enough for such important information
- modifier to health/stun recovery basically the same as above

- firing accuracy (only in dogfight) is also rather hard to convey to the player
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on November 17, 2016, 10:49:11 am
Can bonus from commendations go above the maximum?
I.e. let's say I reach 100 bravery in normal way... can I get to bravery 150 if I have +50 bravery from commendations?

Btw. I vote for "yes".

Probably shouldn't allow to go below minimum?
I.e. with bravery 10 and -50 from commendations... I should probably still have 10 bravery. I guess negative values would not go well with various formulas.

Absolutely you should be allowed to go above max. As for going below minimum, I agree as well. Could we have it, while we're at it, to implement a check if wearing an armor would get stats below 0, and disallowing equipping said armor in such a case? Would help 40k mod, for example, where several armors are locked out from early use by huge penalties (-50 Str, for example) and currently the punishment for disregarding it is buggy game behaviour.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on November 17, 2016, 10:53:45 am
Could we have it, while we're at it, to implement a check if wearing an armor would get stats below 0, and disallowing equipping said armor in such a case? Would help 40k mod, for example, where several armors are locked out from early use by huge penalties (-50 Str, for example) and currently the punishment for disregarding it is buggy game behaviour.

Yes, putting on todo list.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 17, 2016, 11:15:20 am
As an addendum to what Dioxine wrote: for damage reduction, I meant damage taken, not damage received. And I think it would be enough to indicate it in the commendation description, since it's not something a player has control over anyway.
Indicating a bonus to Accuracy is indeed a bigger problem, as it influences pilot assignment, but I think it's rather secondary.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on November 17, 2016, 11:40:42 am
I understood damage inflicted :)
Was wondering, why would you decrease the damage our weapons are doing...

But if it's basically bonus to our armor resistance, it is understandable.
Not sure if it is doable (without big changes) tho.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 17, 2016, 11:48:52 am
I understood damage inflicted :)

Touché! :)

Not sure if it is doable (without big changes) tho.

All right, glad it's all clear now :)
I understand some of these features may be hard to add, but hey, one can dream.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on November 17, 2016, 10:08:34 pm
I have a mod idea, currently only a thought experiment, that includes something that might be useful here:

Basic idea is a research subject that would provide a courage bonus to all of a specific unit type based on the number of avenger commendations your crew as a whole had gotten.  So the more martyrs you had, the braver everyone else was, until it is nearly impossible to make them panic.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on November 18, 2016, 12:05:24 am
Good idea for Dune mod; in Piratez it could work the opposite way :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on November 18, 2016, 12:08:49 am
I was thinking War Boys, from Fury Road, honestly.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 18, 2016, 12:05:27 pm
Added two items:

Quote
More info on weapons
Some additional weapon stats could be displayed in Ufopedia which for now have to be added manually: additional “bleedthrough” damage, damage bonuses from stats, accuracy formulas.

Quote

More info on armours

Some additional armour stats could be displayed in Ufopedia which for now have to be added manually: weight, vision (various modes), camo. Also dodge chance if it’s not too complicated (as it usually relies on stats).

The first one is problematic, because there's hardly enough space to put that info, but it's up for discussion. The latter can be just put into the scrolled text.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on November 18, 2016, 12:30:10 pm
I'm all for automating this, although it'd have to be an involved effort, as the current GUI won't fit all that info.
Some initial thoughts:
1) needs armor entry and weapon entry to become scrollable (so, eg. weapon entry can fit any number of ammo types).
2) needs armor entry to be redesigned. Stat column space optimized: pushed all the way to the top, left & right armor merged into side armor (always the same as of current rules), column thinned and stretching all the way to the bottom, with text space thinned to make room for it, and added scroll for the text (to the left side).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: clownagent on November 19, 2016, 11:52:00 am
Added two items:

The first one is problematic, because there's hardly enough space to put that info, but it's up for discussion. The latter can be just put into the scrolled text.

This would be really useful.
I would like to add:
- Ammo capacity for clips
- Fuel type for crafts
- Projectile speed for craft weapons

Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 19, 2016, 12:19:15 pm
I would like to add:
- Ammo capacity for clips
- Fuel type for crafts
- Projectile speed for craft weapons

Yes, these are useful things. I thought about some of them too, but I don't know how exactly it should look like...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on November 20, 2016, 10:04:13 am
My view:

A/ Instead of writing even more, I would write less. Many articles are too long, involve tons of math and only discourage the player from reading them; and ever using the weapon. Instead of all that math maybe writing something like "Best in the hands of a brave gal. Requires VooDoo skills." would be more user-friendly.

B/ For geeks, nerds, and number-gasm-folks, we could have a button "Stats for nerds", which opens a pop-up with full ruleset definition, either raw or slightly formatted.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: bladum on November 20, 2016, 11:15:42 am
@Meridian

1) In my fork based on yours 3.5 i did some ufopedia improvments, to allow moder to add less description. interested in merging ?

2) or in general are you interested in UI improvement. ?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 20, 2016, 12:52:58 pm
B/ For geeks, nerds, and number-gasm-folks, we could have a button "Stats for nerds", which opens a pop-up with full ruleset definition, either raw or slightly formatted.

That would be pretty cool. I mean, moving stuff to another place to make room for more stuff is the point of this request, right?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on November 20, 2016, 03:30:11 pm
That is the best solution, to be honest. Writing so much maths is not only user-unfriendly, it's also a crazy amount of work and makes articles overloaded with unclimatic info. Bladum's expanded Pedia article looks already too busy, and it still doesn't cover much; that's certainly not the way to go. I'm not saying that Pedia is already perfect, but moving math info to a separate pop-up would be the best.

There is space at the top for one more button, let's place the nerd button there. Also to keeps things clear and nice, the popup shouldn't be fullscreen. Also Bladum proposed extra stats on the battlecape attack bar. I'd be fine if damage range was displayed, but maybe not on the bars... As it would be cloned for every attack type. Better to display it in the inventory somehow (r-click popup? Examine button?).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: bladum on November 20, 2016, 04:14:24 pm
extra stats for battlescape

just tell me how it should look like e.g. screen from other game :) i will make some code update and we will see if it work or not
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Eddie on November 20, 2016, 04:15:57 pm
I'd be fine if damage range was displayed, but maybe not on the bars...

I would love this. Could be displayed near the target crosshair next to ufoextender accuracy (won't work for melee though). This would help a lot to better understand the weapons. I would also go as far as including the target attributes like resistances and armor in the calculation. It's a bit metagamey (you wouldn't know what that thing is resistant too), but it is far more helpful to the player that way. If you don't like it, make an option to turn it off, but less experienced players will profit immensly from it. What I would also like is for the display of melee attack accuracy to be corrected for enemy dodge.

Idea for peadia: Clip size could be displayed by a simple number drawn over the ammo type (see picture).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on November 20, 2016, 04:39:32 pm
Nerd pop-up screen would be cool, as would a simple number written on the clips (or x5 for a 5 bullet clip).

What I'd like to see in the attack bar, instead of the rng, are the actual minimum and maximum damage for the gal that has the weapon equipped. So the numbers you have now (ex. 0-200%) but multiplied by the weapon's power calculated for the gal specifically, with her current stats.

Then you know how effective a gal is with a given weapon when you're just about to use it and you can get away from cluttering your brain trying to scale stats and stuff. If you're not sure, you just equip both weapons and on the next mission you can check which is better on T1 while waiting.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: bladum on November 20, 2016, 05:21:46 pm
something like this ?

accurancy %
average damage

i display debug values now:
 base power from weapon or ammo
 bonus power from weapon or ammo
 power lost to distance

Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on November 20, 2016, 05:27:33 pm
I was thinking just in the attack bar, next to your hit chance. Power loss would be cool on the cursor though, for sure.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on November 20, 2016, 05:28:25 pm
Looks good, better than cluttering the attack bar.

Including target's resistances in that number would be a straight cheat, though.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on November 20, 2016, 08:10:34 pm
Yeah, actually playing around with the image in paint, I agree that just "weapon power" is enough under the hit %. It saves some space, can represent power drop with distance, and the RNG range is something the player should be able to calculate (50-150% or 0-200% are not hard calculations, the important, annoying number is the A*X+B*Y+C of listed power)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: bladum on November 20, 2016, 09:17:12 pm
ok so now just convince Meridian to merge my pull request with OXCE+ :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on November 20, 2016, 09:42:48 pm
@Meridian
1) In my fork based on yours 3.5 i did some ufopedia improvments, to allow moder to add less description. interested in merging ?
2) or in general are you interested in UI improvement. ?

1/ no, it's too different from vanilla, I prefer making more subtle and optional changes... in this case the "stats for nerds" button discussed above
2/ yes, just share ideas here on forum... or post links to your repo

ok so now just convince Meridian to merge my pull request with OXCE+ :)

I don't see any PR...

Anyway, PR is not my preferred way, if you just publish the link to your repo/branch, where the change is located, I'll cherry-pick/merge it after review and potential small changes. You'll be credited of course.

PS: To explain, I must keep number of commits in my fork to the minimum, so that I can continue merging with vanilla (with bigger changes, I need to revert some commits, then merge with vanilla and then re-implement the breaking changes again)... so PRs usually get processed into a single commit before I merge them. Only way to keep this going without losing my mind (or at least I don't know of any better way).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on November 20, 2016, 11:15:42 pm
I second posting links to repos, that way I can merge them in even if Meridian doesn't like it (like the awesome, cheesy but so much easier to use that it's worth it scanner) :P
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Eddie on November 20, 2016, 11:16:27 pm
Including target's resistances in that number would be a straight cheat, though.

You could only display it for researched enemies. I think that is doable and would not be cheaty. The point is to hide the math from the player. Think Blowpipe vs Osiron Security. Another example: Self Charging Laspistol vs Mechtoid. Takes a lot of shots, but you can kill a Mechtoid with that.

Now that I'm thinking about enemy info: The mind probe should show resistances too, and not just armor. Would have to solve the display space problem first though.

Yeah, actually playing around with the image in paint, I agree that just "weapon power" is enough under the hit %. It saves some space, can represent power drop with distance, and the RNG range is something the player should be able to calculate (50-150% or 0-200% are not hard calculations, the important, annoying number is the A*X+B*Y+C of listed power)

The thing is, if a weapon is 0-200% or 50-150% is not always clear. If that were explicitly stated in the Bootypeadia, I would say it's not that important (something for the nerd button). But right now I still have to look in the ruleset from time to time because I'm not sure about the damage range. I would still prefer to have the damage range, because why no. It does not use that much more space and saves me a little bit of math.

We still need ideas how to display this stuff for melee weapons though, because they don't have a target crosshair. And melee weapons is where this would be most helpful because these are the bulk of stat dependent damage items.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Eddie on November 20, 2016, 11:25:59 pm
I second posting links to repos, that way I can merge them in even if Meridian doesn't like it (like the awesome, cheesy but so much easier to use that it's worth it scanner) :P

Could you please post your executable for the folk like me who don't know how to merge and build their own executable?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on November 21, 2016, 05:21:01 am
You could only display it for researched enemies. I think that is doable and would not be cheaty. The point is to hide the math from the player. Think Blowpipe vs Osiron Security. Another example: Self Charging Laspistol vs Mechtoid. Takes a lot of shots, but you can kill a Mechtoid with that.

Now that I'm thinking about enemy info: The mind probe should show resistances too, and not just armor. Would have to solve the display space problem first though.

The thing is, if a weapon is 0-200% or 50-150% is not always clear. If that were explicitly stated in the Bootypeadia, I would say it's not that important (something for the nerd button). But right now I still have to look in the ruleset from time to time because I'm not sure about the damage range. I would still prefer to have the damage range, because why no. It does not use that much more space and saves me a little bit of math.

Randomness is stated most of the time, or part of a broad category (melee is 50-150%, plasma stun and ranged is 0-200%) and a good half the time the lower limit would be zero, which is wasting space for nothing. I think average power is enough, like in the ufopaedia.

I also think armor and resistance should be left to the player. resistance*TotalPower - Armor*ArmorPiercing is already a lot better than resistance * (StatMod1 * Stat1 + StatMod2 * Stat2 + Base Damage) * RangePowerLoss - Armor * Armor Piercing and keeping things independent of enemies allow you to quickly gauge which weapon is on average better for a gal.

Quote
We still need ideas how to display this stuff for melee weapons though, because they don't have a target crosshair. And melee weapons is where this would be most helpful because these are the bulk of stat dependent damage items.

A very good point, maybe in the attack bar next to the "Hit" or "Stun" keyword?

[/quote]
Could you please post your executable for the folk like me who don't know how to merge and build their own executable?
I could publish my code on github.

What I have is an executable that *should* work on Xubuntu 14.04 (I compile individually on my different computers even though they share the same OS because I figured there's a small chance of it going wrong and I'd rather waste idle computer time compiling than my active time debugging) and I have no idea (nor interest in learning) how to compile for others.

My stuff isn't very different from Meridian's, except for having a few cheaty/ott things that he/Dioxine rejected (the scanner and extra inventory stats are all I can think of right now. I use to have statistical ammo conservation and manufacturing profit too, but it got pulled so now everyone has it).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on November 21, 2016, 10:38:45 am
You could only display it for researched enemies. I think that is doable and would not be cheaty. The point is to hide the math from the player. Think Blowpipe vs Osiron Security. Another example: Self Charging Laspistol vs Mechtoid. Takes a lot of shots, but you can kill a Mechtoid with that.

Then it's not cheaty but Friendly Tell-You-All Advisor, which is also bad. The player should get info about weapons damage, but come on. I'd feel insulted as a player if the game was so forthcoming. I want my math in the game, thank you.
Also, there is problem with 'what research?'. In Piratez, you usually have to research the corpse to get resses, but sometimes corpse is shared, and you need to research live enemy.
I'd be happy if there was a "target analyzer" function available to enable in Mind Probe type items, which will display you sort of a fake armor entry for the enemy, with their paperdoll, weapon(s) held, and armor values AND resistances (maybe resistances only in broad terms, like 'immune', 'very resistant' (1-20%), 'resistant' (21-70%), 'normal' (71-110), 'susceptible' (111+).

Displaying damage ranges would tell you nothing, since both Gaussian double-dice, and UFO single-dice have the exact same ranges while differing very substantially in the chance for rolling high or low.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 28, 2016, 08:59:38 pm
While watching Meridian's LP (ep. 155), I've decided to add another one:

Upgradeable facilities
An option to make facilities upgrades from other facilities, like Barracks -> Luxury Barracks. The new building replaces the old building. It would still cost time and money, but the old building would still function until the new one is complete (so no need to send soldiers away, for example).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on November 28, 2016, 09:35:14 pm
Have you ever tried to sleep in a room that's being renovated (ie worked on during the day and you'd sleep there at night)? Or use a bathroom that's also being worked on? They certainly don't work with 100% efficiency. ~50% if you're lucky, and trying to keep things ~50% useable would probably slow the work (by requiring extra precautions) by a significant amount too.

I sort of agree that destroying/selling normal barracks to build luxury ones on top is annoying and silly and that it should be faster to upgrade than to build in a new slot, but definitely not 100% efficiency on the old building.

It could be made so the upgrade process has a global, ruleset defined, old building efficiency, cost reduction (% of old building construction cost) and time reduction (% of old building construction time), then that could be tweaked and useful. After all, you should save time when building a luxury barracks on top of a vault (don't have to dig or rebuild the foundations) too, and you can store crap in parts of the vault while converting others.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 28, 2016, 09:47:07 pm
Well, half the reason for the suggestion is that there's a problem with the people who sleep there - you need to sends them to another base or something...

Maybe it's not a good idea, but I think it's acceptable if the old building stayed active. After all, gals upgrade it themselves, and they're not sleeping when they're working, right?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on November 28, 2016, 10:33:37 pm
I'm just saying that keeping the old building that's being demolished at 100% efficiency while demolishing it is not really realistic. For having lived in a house under renovations, rooms that are being renovated are not nearly at 100% capacity. 50% maybe. But in practice we didn't use them at all (so 0% efficiency). During the work, the house actually accommodated 1/3 the normal number of people. We could have lived there, but that would have been at the cost of reducing the useability of other rooms further and our comfort/morale would also have suffered :P

The variation of perceptions is why I suggested global efficiencies being definable in the ruleset. If you think you can have as many people sleep in a demolition/construction site as in properly built rooms, you can set the efficiency to 100%  (and you can't argue that they're sleeping in the workshop or something since those are also running at 100% efficiency with runts using all the space). Meanwhile I can set it to 25-50% for my mod because I think organized rooms can accommodate more people than a half-built space with junk everywhere.

Just saying if we're going to have the feature, it might be better to think about these at the same time. Otherwise, after the upgrade mechanic is put, someone will request lower building efficiency and the code will have to be revisited, which takes longer than designing and doing it properly all at once.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 28, 2016, 11:06:27 pm
Ye, I fully agree with your conclusions. :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: KateMicucci on November 29, 2016, 11:44:10 pm
If the purpose of the suggestion is to remove the headache of having to get remove gals while the facility is being rebuilt, then lowering efficiency during the upgrade defeats the point.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on November 30, 2016, 12:32:06 am
 :o

Would you also support a feature that only enabled ignoring 100% of armor for guns instead of letting modders decide how much is ignored, because the purpose was to ignore armor?

If the aim of the modder is to make it easy to upgrade, they set efficiency to 100%. If they want to help but just a bit, they can set it to 50%. You can do the whole range with the efficiency, instead of only a binary choice. What's not to like?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on November 30, 2016, 12:10:25 pm
I have no idea what could be the purpose of 'building upgrades' in this game, other than making GUI more complicated (as opposed to razing old building and constructing a new one).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: yrizoud on November 30, 2016, 03:41:13 pm
The game engine is player-friendly when you can start building a new facility in a free block, and when it's complete, if you need the space, destroy the old one (ex: large sonar "replacing" small sonar). When you reach a point in a game/mod where a base is filled and the game/mod requires you to build more in the same base, it's an uncomfortable situation.

I think any mod/TC should avoid this situation, because unless the player already knows EVERYTHING in advance, there is no way he can plan his base development. For example if the last-tier research will require 6 different buildings in the same base, I want to know in advance, to save the spots (and not build them in 6 different bases).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on November 30, 2016, 04:14:02 pm
Then you will just raze some useless crap and build these 6 buildings. What's the problem?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on November 30, 2016, 04:27:34 pm
OK, I've been convinced, deleting this point.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: yrizoud on November 30, 2016, 05:02:20 pm
Which 'useless crap' ? In 5 minutes, an other research topic may unlock something which requires it.
Game: "HA-HA! I made you destroy it. Now what *else* do you destroy, in order to rebuild it?"
Me: *shoots screen*
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on November 30, 2016, 06:09:50 pm
Then you will just raze some useless crap and build these 6 buildings. What's the problem?

Problem is there is no "useless crap" to raze, everything I build is used.

But I agree that we don't need this functionality. It's a mess GUI-wise... and upgrading from e.g. large living quarters to luxury living quarters is anyway only marginally better. I can live with large quarters until end of the game.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on December 01, 2016, 02:30:08 pm
One more thing (specifically in PirateZ, not vanilla).

If I somehow painfully manage to upgrade to Luxury Barracks and Armored Vaults... I get the additional space, but I get also base defense capability... which I don't want.

It may sound strange, but Base Defense missions for me are a very good source of everything I need:
- e.g. I am waiting for 2 years now for Church crackdown (i.e. Cardinal)... I definitely don't want to shoot them down when they appear
- I also welcome Mercenaries with open arms, since they give me Synth Mesh
- all other base defenses are also great source of heavy plasmas and other goodies

The only thing which I want to avoid are star god crackdowns... since they don't give me anything.

Currently I am doing this by building 2 hideout shrouds:
- if I decide I don't want the crackdown, I keep them and they (usually) don't find me
- if I decide I want the crackdown, I dismantle them, play crackdown and then rebuild them again

With Luxury Barracks and Armored Vaults, I don't have such possibility anymore.
I cannot afford to dismantle and rebuild them each time... not because I wouldn't have enough money... but because I wouldn't have enough storage/living space.

I don't have a solution for this... just saying out loud my thoughts.

PS: maybe I could make a user setting to ask before base facilities start shooting at UFO if I want to skip this and play the base defense instead... or does anyone have any other suggestions how to handle mid/late game base defenses? How do you deal with them?

PPS: and maybe even switch to disable hideout shrouds :P so that I don't have to dismantle and rebuild them each time
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: ohartenstein23 on December 01, 2016, 03:16:42 pm
That sounds like an interesting idea - would it be like a screen that has a list of functionalities at a certain base with an enable/disable toggle?  I'm imagining a new screen that's accessible from the base info page, or right-clicking on defenses/shrouds/grav shields, and has a list like this:

Defense structures: enabled / =disabled=
Hideout shrouds: enabled / =disabled=
Grav Shield: enabled / =disabled=
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Starving Poet on December 01, 2016, 05:33:49 pm
I think the shroud could definitely use a geoscape notification of some type with a toggle in the base info screen or even just a right click option on the module itself - as for the defenses, how hard would it be to allow us to manually fire them instead of having them fire automatically when the UFO comes in for a landing?

Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on December 01, 2016, 06:08:46 pm
I think the shroud could definitely use a geoscape notification of some type with a toggle in the base info screen or even just a right click option on the module itself - as for the defenses, how hard would it be to allow us to manually fire them instead of having them fire automatically when the UFO comes in for a landing?

Yes, a right-click would be the most logical place to place it, at least for me. Though on the other hand, a new button in the base screen "DEFENSES" would be in line with the original logic, so I think both would be necessary (if it's possible at all).

And I would actually like to operate ground batteries manually. 8)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on December 01, 2016, 07:44:33 pm
Gah, maybe do it simpler....

>Base gets attacked
>Player is prompted: should defenses fire, or let invaders land?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on December 01, 2016, 08:22:56 pm
Or make it even simpler: Make sure that a player's reaction to an attack is "OMG NOOOOO!!!" and then defenses always firing makes sense because you'd never want to fight the battle and likely lose a bunch of gals or the base altogether. This also is further incentive towards developing the capability to intercept military crafts so you hopefully destroy the scouting ships before they find you, making the air game the primary defense against retaliations. Then base defenses, then the desperate last stand in your base.

Given the current circumstances, fighting base defenses against all but a few enemies is a good thing. Why would a crackdown on your hideout be a good thing? I'd actually welcome the bugged constant stream of enemy battleships, combined with a ramp up of their ground crews (Ideally crews get tougher and tougher as attacks are defeated, but I know that it's not possible, so just tougher crews in general). Even a super frustrating "facilities in which walls were destroyed have a repair time during which they are not functional". You like fighting in vaults or barracks? Well, that'll be a pain now (good thing we have the "ship stuff off at the end of battle, so you could just ship the stuff/people that can't stay right now because the base just got blown up). Then you get a reason to build some traps and corridors to fight in (Which are pretty underused, at least in my game).

If the guild knows where your hideout is and you're a pain in the ass for them, why wouldn't they keep striking at it until they get you? Why would they go: "Well, Bob the guildmaster tried but really, the 20 gals in primitive armor with swords and throwing knives were too much for the PCMs and GOs he took with him.. no point in trying again. What? You think you could do it, MARSEC commander dude? Nah, I tell you, they're ninjas in there, forget it! We'll just keep losing our shipping all the time, it's ok. No, we won't hire Mercs to do the job either. And we certainly won't inform the Governor about this rebellious bunch that disturbing global trade."

I can understand giving up after searching for a month and not finding anything but losing a bunch of ships. Giving up after having found the hideout is weird and makes the factions look weak. I'd love to see combined MARSEC + Merc crackdown teams that really whoop your ass and come with real combat teams and real nasty weapons. As a compensation, reduce the speed at which they come in so they might be intercepted. Not being able to have an air defense even if your crafts are already in the air and ready is annoying. That's half the point of an air force, to defend the base against enemy flyers.

And the other alternative if you don't have an air force? Pick up your stuff and leave. That's what pirates do when actual navies find them: They go away since their only way of thriving is picking on the weak and avoiding the strong. No ridiculous "navy of pirates standing up to the imperial navy". Or if that's to be the case, then things need to be recast so that the crew actually do become a global power able to rival the factions instead of the small scale one I think they are supposed to be.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: ohartenstein23 on December 01, 2016, 08:31:15 pm
I think global power to rival the factions is what we're going for here - you can research things like battleships to keep in your back pocket, make your gals international superstars, and empower mutants around the globe to stand up to pogroms to the point where they have enough military power to rent and sell off the excess back to you.  Your economy can be based on manufacturing main battle tanks to sell to the highest bidder.  You build plasma weapons even more powerful than the empire's heavy designs.  Things like that are the reason why every global faction spends resources every month trying to track down your hideouts.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on December 01, 2016, 08:33:03 pm
I'd really love to see how would you implement that 'simplest' solution (making base defenses as difficult as to be unwelcome but not an instakill for early-mid game).
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on December 01, 2016, 08:34:15 pm
Just keep in mind we play games for fun.
Please don't turn my question to a nerfing/buffing flamewar.


Gah, maybe do it simpler....
>Base gets attacked
>Player is prompted: should defenses fire, or let invaders land?

Yes, something along those lines.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: legionof1 on December 01, 2016, 08:53:30 pm
I'm all for a simple fire/dont fire choice on the defense screen. There are times i want to get attacked and times i don't, on the same base during a game.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: KateMicucci on December 01, 2016, 08:57:24 pm
Is it possible to make a ufo shot down by base defense spawn a crash site?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on December 01, 2016, 09:01:25 pm
Is it possible to make a ufo shot down by base defense spawn a crash site?

It's not currently supported, but it is (relatively easily) doable.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: ohartenstein23 on December 01, 2016, 09:05:02 pm
Is it possible to make a ufo shot down by base defense spawn a crash site?

Yes, but it would mess with balance of base defenses.  To 'shoot down' an incoming UFO, you have to completely destroy it - twice the amount of damage it takes to crash land a UFO.  To have it just shoot down a UFO but not destroy it would mean that only half the base defenses are required to stop the assault and every incoming UFO would crash land instead of being destroyed.

So possible with some new code, but every modder would yell at you for destroying their work in making a meaningful decision between building base defenses, letting the UFO through, or trying to shoot it down before it reaches you.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on December 01, 2016, 09:13:12 pm
I'd really love to see how would you implement that 'simplest' solution (making base defenses as difficult as to be unwelcome but not an instakill for early-mid game).

Well, alright, maybe it's not the simplest solution because it goes and rebalances key aspects of the game. It's a simple solution to the "need to code something so I can better exploit crackdowns" since it removes the need for coding by making base defenses always desirable. From the modder's (your) point of view, It's not a simple solution since it's a lot of extra modding work. Although I do believe that it could be achieved with multiple ranks in a given factions, and retaliations only using the hardcore ranks + being given hardcore weapons, combined with having a early game variant of the races with less hardcore ranks and weapons used for retaliations (and all the required ranks/weapons already exist). I also believe it's ok for base defenses to be a losing proposition in the early-mid game, since I don't believe pirates or modern humans should be able to stand up to pissed off global factions or aliens, respectively. Hence my mention of moving to a base, as a weaker guerilla/pirate/resistance faction would do.

But I won't go further into it. Since:

Please don't turn my question to a nerfing/buffing flamewar.

Is it possible to make a ufo shot down by base defense spawn a crash site?
That would be a good alternative to making defenses not fire since having a crash site means you could get all the good loot people want and you'd fight a slightly less advantageous battle since bases are usually designed to be easy to defend, compared to UFOs that are often a pain to clear.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: legionof1 on December 01, 2016, 10:00:03 pm
Well at least as it currently stands in Piratez, early game crackdowns are pretty rare. Actually shooting down craft to generate the crackdowns is quite delayed. I wouldn't worry to much about early game specific base attack groups. If the player is pushing the air game sufficiently hard to generate crackdowns they have the resources to defend themselves. 
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on December 02, 2016, 12:12:59 am
So basically:

(https://i.imgur.com/ucT0PD6.gif?1)

Yes? :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: legionof1 on December 02, 2016, 12:20:06 am
Pretty much. At least that has been by experience post airbus era.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Eddie on December 02, 2016, 01:26:34 am
If it is doable:
What would make base defences a little more "believable" would be if in the first year (or something like that), the factions wouldn't do the crackdowns themselves but would hire bandits or raiders to do it. So after you defeat these henchmen several times, then they actually start sending their own security teams. It would also be nice if then the invaders were only military ranks and terror units.

A kind of hacky way to do this without new code:
Remove retaliation odds for shootdown of ufo, but instead tie retaliations to research. If the player researches certain crafts and craft weapons, you can assume that he will use them to do air combat. If he gets better craft weapons, you can assume he shoots down more important shippings. So you could design bandit and raider retaliations tied to hunter-killer research for example (with a long delay time), and then marsec and mercenary retaliations started by railgun tech.
To provide the fluff for these missions, the invading forces could carry mission briefing papers explaining why they attack you.

Bonus: no more first year retaliations with plasma weapons and blaster launchers. (Or am I wrong and base defence uses always the same weapon layout?)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on December 02, 2016, 03:01:54 am
Although I do believe that it could be achieved with multiple ranks in a given factions, and retaliations only using the hardcore ranks + being given hardcore weapons

Not really. They're already using best weapons. And even Mercs are a fodder. All it takes is to nuke hangars.

Bonus: no more first year retaliations with plasma weapons and blaster launchers. (Or am I wrong and base defence uses always the same weapon layout?)

It does. Can be overridden by retal race, but then it'd have to override all retal ship deploys as well, also in no way this can be tied to time without even crazier code complexity.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Arthanor on December 02, 2016, 04:26:20 am
Not really. They're already using best weapons. And even Mercs are a fodder. All it takes is to nuke hangars.

Well, yes, hangar nuking is pretty much the response to hideout assaults. But past the first one, you are (should be?) putting your loot severely at risk, and your VIP captures too since you're likely to obliterate everything. If you're willing to sacrifice both, then sure it's easy. But if the use of nukes becomes the way out of nasty crackdowns, that defeats farming and all is good as far as I'm concerned. So basically, my suggestion is/was "crackdowns should be nasty, best taken out either by air combat, base defence facilities or base defence tactics that are not conducive to farming". If you want the loot, shoot the things down and go get it. Shooting down a cruiser to get the VIP inside, even with the shield buff that makes beams useless, is totally doable. You don't need "loot delivery".

A task team of stormtroopers/marsec/mercs with boomguns, plasma spitters and scorchers + a few blasters or something (ie stuff that snapshots well + explodes to kill when having near misses and destroy walls) is a force that the factions should be able and willing to afford to get rid of a group that plagues their shipping. It even makes sense for them to deploy that way (similar to using flamethrowers to clear out tunnels/bunkers). It's not that much compared to all the ships that they deploy for a retaliation. Bring out the big guns on the ground like they do in the sky and teach them pirates that it wasn't a good idea to challenge their supremacy.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on December 20, 2016, 03:17:10 pm
It's certainly a big step forward. But I still think the next step should be a settable threshold fwor reaction fire. Accuracy 5% isn't noticeably different from 0%. If I could set it myself, I'd probably go for something like 30%, but someone else might prefer 20% (because of different personal preferences or different weapons choice), so I don't think enforcing a particular threshold would be a good idea.

Here you go:

Code: [Select]
minReactionAccuracy: 30

I still strongly recommend to keep it at default value = 0.
For example, reacting with baby nuke at 1% is as deadly as with 30%...

EDIT: btw. "30" means "don't shoot with 30 or less, shoot only with 31 or more"
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on December 30, 2016, 04:57:38 pm
Actually I thought of making it an option, not a ruleset variable... But it's already something too, as people may make minimods which only affect the reaction.


EDIT:
Can't edit the file right now, so putting it here.

Random Manufacturing
A manufacturing project has many possible outcomes. the resulting item is chosen randomly, according to a list with weighs.
(There are several potential uses, for example "unpacking" a parcel to find random treasure. Yes, it can be done with random loot, but in some cases it's not exactly enough.)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on December 30, 2016, 06:08:00 pm
Random Manufacturing
A manufacturing project has many possible outcomes. the resulting item is chosen randomly, according to a list with weighs.
(There are several potential uses, for example "unpacking" a parcel to find random treasure. Yes, it can be done with random loot, but in some cases it's not exactly enough.)

If you want this backwards-compatible, then I can do:
1. either same weights... and keep possibility to manufacture more than 1 item
2. or use number of produced items as weight... and produce always just one item

If you want both, I would have to introduce a new attribute (can't reuse "producedItems") and make it a bit messier than it already is.

Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on December 30, 2016, 06:34:59 pm
If you want this backwards-compatible, then I can do:
1. either same weights... and keep possibility to manufacture more than 1 item
2. or use number of produced items as weight... and produce always just one item

If you want both, I would have to introduce a new attribute (can't reuse "producedItems") and make it a bit messier than it already is.

Right now I am interested in getting just one item, randomized according to weighs... Getting more would be an interesting option though, if not hard to code.

Also, I have a question regarding randomizedItems and YAML. Can you changed this list

Code: [Select]
              itemList: [STR_ALIEN_DATA_SLATE, STR_ALIEN_DATA_SLATE, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY, STR_AXE, STR_AXE, STR_INCENDIARY_GRENADE, STR_INCENDIARY_GRENADE, STR_STUN_ROD, STR_STUN_ROD, STR_MEDI_PACK, STR_MEDI_PACK, STR_MEDI_PACK, STR_ALIEN_ELECTRONICS, STR_MUTANT_BLOOD_PLASMA, STR_PSICLONE, STR_PSICLONE, STR_ALIEN_GRENADE, STR_SONIC_PULSER, STR_GAUSS_PISTOL_CLIP, STR_GAUSS_RIFLE_CLIP, STR_HEAVY_GAUSS_CLIP, STR_CANISTER_GUN_CLIP_CH, STR_CANISTER_GUN_CLIP_I, STR_TOXIGUN_FLASK, STR_PLASMA_CASTER_CLIP, STR_PLASMA_PISTOL_CLIP, STR_SONIC_PISTOL_CLIP, STR_SONIC_BLASTA_RIFLE_CLIP, STR_SONIC_CANNON_CLIP, STR_CONCUSSION_CANNON_CLIP, STR_TLETH_SPEAR, STR_TLETH_HATCHET, STR_VIBRO_BLADE, STR_MONEY_BRIEFCASE, STR_MONEY_BRIEFCASE]

Into something like this:

Code: [Select]
              itemList:
                - STR_ALIEN_DATA_SLATE
                - STR_ALIEN_DATA_SLATE
                - STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY
                - STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY
                - STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY
                - STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY
                - STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY
                - STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY
                - STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY
                - STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY
                - STR_AXE
                - STR_AXE
                - STR_INCENDIARY_GRENADE
                - STR_INCENDIARY_GRENADE
                - STR_STUN_ROD
                - STR_STUN_ROD
                - STR_MEDI_PACK
                - STR_MEDI_PACK
                - STR_MEDI_PACK
                - STR_ALIEN_ELECTRONICS
                - STR_MUTANT_BLOOD_PLASMA
                - STR_PSICLONE
                - STR_PSICLONE
                - STR_ALIEN_GRENADE
                - STR_SONIC_PULSER
                - STR_GAUSS_PISTOL_CLIP
                - STR_GAUSS_RIFLE_CLIP
                - STR_HEAVY_GAUSS_CLIP
                - STR_CANISTER_GUN_CLIP_CH
                - STR_CANISTER_GUN_CLIP_I
                - STR_TOXIGUN_FLASK
                - STR_PLASMA_CASTER_CLIP
                - STR_PLASMA_PISTOL_CLIP
                - STR_SONIC_PISTOL_CLIP
                - STR_SONIC_BLASTA_RIFLE_CLIP
                - STR_SONIC_CANNON_CLIP
                - STR_CONCUSSION_CANNON_CLIP
                - STR_TLETH_SPEAR
                - STR_TLETH_HATCHET
                - STR_VIBRO_BLADE
                - STR_MONEY_BRIEFCASE
                - STR_MONEY_BRIEFCASE

Or preferably even this:

Code: [Select]
              itemList:
                - STR_ALIEN_DATA_SLATE: 2
                - STR_CYBERWEB_BATTERY: 8
                - STR_AXE: 2
                - STR_INCENDIARY_GRENADE: 2
                - STR_STUN_ROD: 2
                - STR_MEDI_PACK: 3
                - STR_ALIEN_ELECTRONICS: 1
                - STR_MUTANT_BLOOD_PLASMA: 1
                - STR_PSICLONE: 2
                - STR_ALIEN_GRENADE: 1
                - STR_SONIC_PULSER: 1
                - STR_GAUSS_PISTOL_CLIP: 1
                - STR_GAUSS_RIFLE_CLIP: 1
                - STR_HEAVY_GAUSS_CLIP: 1
                - STR_CANISTER_GUN_CLIP_CH: 1
                - STR_CANISTER_GUN_CLIP_I: 1
                - STR_TOXIGUN_FLASK: 1
                - STR_PLASMA_CASTER_CLIP: 1
                - STR_PLASMA_PISTOL_CLIP: 1
                - STR_SONIC_PISTOL_CLIP: 1
                - STR_SONIC_BLASTA_RIFLE_CLIP: 1
                - STR_SONIC_CANNON_CLIP: 1
                - STR_CONCUSSION_CANNON_CLIP: 1
                - STR_TLETH_SPEAR: 1
                - STR_TLETH_HATCHET: 1
                - STR_VIBRO_BLADE: 1
                - STR_MONEY_BRIEFCASE: 2

It would make things much easier to read and write...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on December 30, 2016, 06:42:52 pm
Code: [Select]
  bla: [bla1, bla2]

and

Code: [Select]
  bla:
    - bla1
    - bla2

are equivalent... you can use the one you prefer
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on December 30, 2016, 06:51:26 pm
are equivalent... you can use the one you prefer

Thanks, I hoped for this to be true.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Eddie on January 01, 2017, 07:00:59 pm
I have an idea regarding grenade balance. Since we now have the code to restrict inventory slots to certain items, how about restricting primed grenades to be hand only items? That would be a good way to remove the sillyness of having potentially 10+ primed grenades in your inventory and the resulting grenade spam.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on January 01, 2017, 07:49:06 pm
I have an idea regarding grenade balance. Since we now have the code to restrict inventory slots to certain items, how about restricting primed grenades to be hand only items? That would be a good way to remove the sillyness of having potentially 10+ primed grenades in your inventory and the resulting grenade spam.

Wow, this... would be quite revolutionary. But would AI be OK with this?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Eddie on January 01, 2017, 08:03:04 pm
As far as I know the AI usage of grenade type items is "put in hand -> prime -> throw". Does the AI ever prime and then not throw?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: tylor on January 02, 2017, 03:32:48 am
How about no? Having ton of primed grenades in inventory is balanced by them going off if you lose consciousness. And it allows interesting tactics, such as parroting those grenades.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: legionof1 on January 02, 2017, 05:55:51 am
I would be against restricting pre primed grenades in this fashion. I agree there does need to be some sort of limiting factor beyond risk for damaging grenades but slot limitation is not the solution.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: clownagent on January 02, 2017, 09:39:37 am
If primed grenades explode also in inventory, after the timer is up, it would be a good solution.

I think Yankes is already working on this.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Martin on January 02, 2017, 11:44:07 am
Would it be possible to replace some mid to late game crackdown landing parties with a bomber that would, if not shot down by interceptors or destroyed by base defences, just blow up the base with bunker buster fusion bomb?

That woukd make crackdowns scary again instead of them being just annoying.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on January 02, 2017, 04:50:28 pm
Yeah that's doable (through a hack - base defense which spawns 'bomb' units) but doesn't sound like fun. Crackdowns are not simply "annoying", they're a source of revenue for many players...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Martin on January 02, 2017, 06:05:47 pm
they're a source of revenue for many players...

That is quite unrealistic and it turns something that should be punishing for the player and the goal is to avoid it into somehting that rewards player.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Drasnighta on January 02, 2017, 09:38:58 pm
That is quite unrealistic and it turns something that should be punishing for the player and the goal is to avoid it into somehting that rewards player.

Why is it unrealistic?

If I believe myself unassailable, I should be able to PROVOKE an enemy into hastily attacking my Fortified settlement because they don't know any better....
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Martin on January 03, 2017, 12:08:26 am
If I believe myself unassailable, I should be able to PROVOKE an enemy into hastily attacking my Fortified settlement because they don't know any better....

Then they are not enemies but prey. The big factions at least should have some semblance of threat about them.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: legionof1 on January 03, 2017, 01:21:50 am
If primed grenades explode also in inventory, after the timer is up, it would be a good solution.

I think Yankes is already working on this.

This sounds promising.

 
Then they are not enemies but prey. The big factions at least should have some semblance of threat about them.

The big factions are threats in the abstract grand sense. The factions by and large don't give a rats ass. Only small commands take direct action against the player.

This is much like real world piracy. The powers of the age of sail largely didn't bother with the investment needed to wipe out pirates in a given region. The problem just was never sufficient to register with the kings and queens of nations. Local commanders on the other hand took every action they reasonably could but they often lacked sufficient forces to solve the issue permanently. And that doesn't count the examples where the major power where directly funding piracy against the other powers. Or turning a blind eye in hopes there rivals get hurt worse.

Or for a more modern example. The piracy in Somalia was a problem know to the world for months but it took the capture of an American ship and crew, for the US to get off it's butt and address the problem. Until criminal acts are actively threatening an established powers stability and or reputation with its own constituents they will do nothing. The bigger a power the bigger the threat needed to get things in gear.

This absolutely renders local operations of major power as "prey" to organized criminals.   
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Martin on January 03, 2017, 11:51:01 am
Or for a more modern example. The piracy in Somalia was a problem know to the world for months but it took the capture of an American ship and crew, for the US to get off it's butt and address the problem. Until criminal acts are actively threatening an established powers stability and or reputation with its own constituents they will do nothing. The bigger a power the bigger the threat needed to get things in gear.

In Piratez you can shoot down their cruisers and battleships and the only answer to something clearly threatening to their reputation is an anemic hideout raid.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: legionof1 on January 03, 2017, 12:30:03 pm
Never claimed the representation was perfect but there is sufficient basis in reality for me to tolerate it for the sake of a game.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on January 03, 2017, 12:39:25 pm
Right now I am interested in getting just one item, randomized according to weighs... Getting more would be an interesting option though, if not hard to code.

What should be displayed in the monthly profit column?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on January 03, 2017, 01:08:22 pm
What should be displayed in the monthly profit column?

Something like "???" is the only solution, I guess.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on January 03, 2017, 01:35:53 pm
Something like "???" is the only solution, I guess.

Not sure if I can display exactly that smiley :-)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on January 03, 2017, 01:38:48 pm
Not sure if I can display exactly that smiley :-)

XD
Not a bad option actually, though I don't know if better than "???".
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: karadoc on January 03, 2017, 01:40:58 pm
For the monthly profit, I'd suggest the weighted average of the possible profits.


Regarding crackdowns, regardless of realism, I think it would be better for gameplay if they were something people wanted to avoid. I just think the decisions about how to avoid being found and how to defend are good parts of the game; but that only works if base assaults are something players want to avoid.

If a player sees an crackdown sentry and fighter, they should think "I'd better shoot that down before it finds the base"; and the player should have built interceptors for this purpose. If the enemy is flying heavy gunships or something, hopefully the player should have their own heavy craft to defend. If the crackdown arrives, the player should hope there base defences are enough to help them... But on the other hand, if the player actually wants there base to be attacked, then all of the planning and preparing and fighting becomes "Cool. Crackdown. I'll just do nothing and wait for them to arrive." I just think it's more interesting to act than to wait. (I personally 'role play' that I need to protect my bases from being attacked regardless of the profits.)

I've not sure what (if any) changes would be good for crackdowns; but I do have one suggestion:

Damaged tiles in your base should cost money to repair. I'm not talking about whole facilities being destroyed, I just mean there should be costs to repair the base after various explosives have trashed the place. That way, if you win a base defence you'll still be awarded with good equipment and high ranking prisoners, but you'll have to pay a price too...  Maybe you'll have to sell the equipment you got to repair your base. The cost could be based on the number of damaged squares on the battlescape at the end of the mission; and it could be deducted directly from your account.

Anyway, that would probably take a decent amount of work to implement and balance; so maybe it's not worth it. But I thought it was at least worth suggesting.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: just_dont on January 03, 2017, 01:58:36 pm
In Piratez you can shoot down their cruisers and battleships and the only answer to something clearly threatening to their reputation is an anemic hideout raid.
Even if crackdowns become automatic losses, it won't make them resistant to abuse.
I can easily imagine that people will simply build dedicated "attack bases" (hangars/barracks) and will do all the raiding from those, quickly transferring stuff out in case of imminent crackdown. Losing only ~25 days of construction time at best.

This is hardly a good solution for increasing game difficulty. At worst, it can make it much more annoying (because, as people mentioned, sometimes crackdowns are the only sure-fire way to obtain high-rank enemy units).

A more proper solution would be to make crackdown missions appropriately hard (always scaling with actual player's progress), while at the same time removing all instakill heavy ordinance from the game at all (chinese dragon, baby nukes, etc), because instakill weapons trivialize crackdown missions way too much. At least all replenishable instakill weapons.

Scaling missions might be way too much work for the OpenXCOM engine as well. Not to mention that at best you can scale enemy quantities and their equipment; but any equipment gap between the player and the AI that you create will be eventually closed.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on January 03, 2017, 02:02:45 pm
For the monthly profit, I'd suggest the weighted average of the possible profits.

Your runts (or whoever is running the numbers) have no idea what the manufacturing result will be; they may not even have a list of possibilities. It's like buying a shed with everything in it before opening it. How would they/you appraise its value?

No, it should be a big fat question mark. It's a surprise!
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: karadoc on January 03, 2017, 02:12:00 pm
Your runts (or whoever is running the numbers) have no idea what the manufacturing result will be; they may not even have a list of possibilities. It's like buying a shed with everything in it before opening it. How would they/you appraise its value?

No, it should be a big fat question mark. It's a surprise!
Fair enough. I was imagining that the runts _did_ know. For example, if they were opening a treasure chest; they might not know what's in there, but they do know from their treasure chest research roughly what the value will be... ...

In any case, the ??? is probably good. You're right that if the runts have no idea, then they shouldn't be able to tell the player.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on January 03, 2017, 03:06:38 pm
Meridian, it's not terribly important or urgent, but maybe you could have a look at this: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,5185.0.html

If it's simple to code, it could be useful for all sorts of rescue missions.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Martin on January 04, 2017, 01:25:52 am
A more proper solution would be to make crackdown missions appropriately hard (always scaling with actual player's progress), while at the same time removing all instakill heavy ordinance from the game at all (chinese dragon, baby nukes, etc), because instakill weapons trivialize crackdown missions way too much. At least all replenishable instakill weapons.

They already have top grade equipment. The "AI" is too dumb to actually attack, it is stuck patrolling hangars.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on January 04, 2017, 01:36:26 am
Using a chinese dragon in your base gets you what you deserve :)

Maybe what we need is the crackdowns start hunting for weak bases, to cut you off from your expansions, so you actively have to bait them into attacking the bases you've prepped as a kill box
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Eddie on January 04, 2017, 02:23:33 am
If you want to make crackdowns punishing, simply remove the loot from them. Only use terror units with built in weapons that give nothing valuable when captured and give no loot (Biodrones anyone?). That you need crackdowns to get VIP's from certain factions is a debatable game design choice that can be changed.

Ideas for crackdown terror units:
- suicide doggies with strapped on dynamite, primed to 10 rounds. Needs explosives beeing able to expode in inventory when timer runs out. Kill them fast enough, then you can disarm the dynamite.
- exploding attack drones. Drone with an explosion melee attack, that will kill itself too. Of course they explode cyberdisk style when killed.
- ninja cryssalids that have catgirl style camo.
I can really think of lots of stuff that would annoy the hell out of me...

If bombardment were to be implemented in any way, my idea would be:
Attacking bomber attacks base until defense cannons shoot it down / damage it enough to force a retreat. Each attack run of the bomber has a chance to kill runts, equipment, scientists, hands. More/better base defence kills the bomber quicker, so less attack runs. Stationed interceptors can join in attacking the bomber, their guns are added to base defence value. Bombardment shield offers protection from x number of attack runs before it wears out. If you have no base defence... the bomber can attack until the job is done or ammo empty.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Ketonur on January 05, 2017, 12:52:03 am
I think the easiest way to make crackdowns punishing is to give random equipment to the gals. It is quite logic, you are attacked by surprise and grab whatever you could find.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: legionof1 on January 05, 2017, 01:06:06 am
That would add some difficulty in a reasonable way. Technically feasible maybe not.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: ohartenstein23 on January 05, 2017, 01:18:12 am
Random weapons can happen if you have autoequip set in options, and random armor might be a thing in an upcoming OXCE+ version...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Eddie on January 06, 2017, 05:27:00 pm
Since difficulty level has been discussed in another thread:
How hard would it be to code in additional starting items / facilities based on difficulty level?
IF difficulty lower then 4/3/2/1 THEN lookup in ruleset which additional items/facilities/soldiers to add to starting base.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on January 06, 2017, 05:41:58 pm
Since difficulty level has been discussed in another thread:
How hard would it be to code in additional starting items / facilities based on difficulty level?
IF difficulty lower then 4/3/2/1 THEN lookup in ruleset which additional items/facilities/soldiers to add to starting base.

Easy.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on January 06, 2017, 09:10:17 pm
[DONE] Custom damage types

 - current ruleset is backwards-compatible, no need to define all 20 resistances for armors
 - but if you want to define let's say resistance #15, you will need to define all from #1 to #15

New translations visible on screenshot, hopefully.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: karadoc on January 07, 2017, 02:05:00 am
Nice. :)

Speaking of damage types; is there any good reason why the 'normal' choking damage modifier is 400%, rather than 100%? It's a bit weird.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: ohartenstein23 on January 07, 2017, 02:07:44 am
To reduce smoke spam and make gas-related weapons actually worth using.  Smoke does very little stun damage on its own otherwise.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: karadoc on January 07, 2017, 05:35:06 am
To reduce smoke spam and make gas-related weapons actually worth using.  Smoke does very little stun damage on its own otherwise.
But presumably the damage of smoke related weapons could be increased, and the damage modifier decreased, so that the final damage is the same as it currently is. Right?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: ohartenstein23 on January 07, 2017, 06:37:22 am
Okay, let me rephrase: smoke stun damage per turn is hardcoded into the damage type.  The intent was to make standing in smoke a bad idea and not just a minor nuisance like in vanilla, and the only way to do that is to up the damage modifier.  OXCE can do a lot, but damage over time is not exposed to ruleset.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: karadoc on January 07, 2017, 07:58:08 am
Okay, let me rephrase: smoke stun damage per turn is hardcoded into the damage type.  The intent was to make standing in smoke a bad idea and not just a minor nuisance like in vanilla, and the only way to do that is to up the damage modifier.  OXCE can do a lot, but damage over time is not exposed to ruleset.
Understood. Thanks.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: ivandogovich on January 09, 2017, 05:31:59 pm
Just to collect this in a thread that is more about desired OXCE+ features:

Streamlined production (from the discussion of my mod for armor production: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,5199.msg77392.html#msg77392

A bit of interest from the discord channel (https://discordapp.com/channels/217792132633591809/217792132633591809?jump=267792157304291328) too. :)

[3:10 PM] just_dont: it would be really nice if Meridian could automate those production issues one day (so that manufacturable prerequisites will be produced automatically)
[3:11 PM] just_dont: or alternate recipes will appear automatically, etc.
[3:11 PM] Solarius Scorch: Yeah, and I think it may actually happen
[3:14 PM] IvanDogovich: yeah, it would be neat.
[3:14 PM] IvanDogovich: I just don't know if its worth his time.
[3:14 PM] IvanDogovich: taking time away from coding other things
[3:16 PM] Solarius Scorch: I personally think it is...
[3:16 PM] just_dont: well, it's never mandatory (I doubt that at some point in time we'll arrive at so complex production chains that they would become unmanageable manually), but quite neat if it could happen
[3:16 PM] Solarius Scorch: But it's hard for me to gauge the cost.
[3:16 PM] Solarius Scorch: If it happens, Dioxine may go even wilder with the chains :smiley:
[3:16 PM] IvanDogovich: Meridian did ask feedback if folks were interested. so pass that on.
[3:17 PM] just_dont: it probably needs a UI expansion to allow managing all that stuff and presenting proper information on chains
[3:20 PM] Solarius Scorch: He did? OK, I'll do that.

Nice to have, but not mandatory. :)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on January 26, 2017, 10:01:23 pm
[DONE] Soldier ranks give bonuses

Soldier ranks available as variables for accuracy, damage bonus, regeneration and all other instances where other soldier stats (like strength, health, healthCurrent etc.) are available as variables.

Code: [Select]
  - type: STR_KNUCKLES
    damageBonus:
#      strength: 0.6
#      melee: 0.2
      rank: [0.0, 10.0] # 10*rank^2
      fatalWounds: [10.0, 2.0]

PS: also added number of fatal wounds as possible parameter

[DONE] Unhardcode rank system
Allow setting how many of lower rank are needed for higher rank to appear.

Code: [Select]
soldiersPerSergeant: 5
soldiersPerCaptain: 11
soldiersPerColonel: 23
soldiersPerCommander: 30

Also allow to set % monthly wages bonus depending on rank.

Code: [Select]
  - type: STR_SOLDIER_S
    costBuy: 20000
    costSalary: 5000 # rookie base salary 5'000
    costSalarySquaddie: 5000 # squaddie salary 10'000
    costSalarySergeant: 10000 # sergeant salary 15'000
    costSalaryCaptain: 15000 # captain salary 20'000
    costSalaryColonel: 50000 # colonel salary 55'000
    costSalaryCommander: 500000 # commander salary 505'000

PS: If there are dynamic salaries, Monthly Costs GUI shows sum of all salaries of all soldier types (and cost per unit is empty)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on February 03, 2017, 11:02:20 pm
Thanks on behalf of Dioxine.

But I will use it too! ;)

EDIT: New feature request, after Dioxine's and mine experiences with X-Com Files:

Vanishing targeted missions
An option (in mission settings) to make the mission disappear after time is up even if it is targeted by a vehicle. This is to prevent abuse by targeting the mission by zeppelins, slow cars etc.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on February 05, 2017, 01:40:18 pm
EDIT: New feature request, after Dioxine's and mine experiences with X-Com Files:

Vanishing targeted missions
An option (in mission settings) to make the mission disappear after time is up even if it is targeted by a vehicle. This is to prevent abuse by targeting the mission by zeppelins, slow cars etc.

DISCLAIMER: I am NOT responsible for, and expressly disclaim all liability for, mixing of these two approaches and any and all player confusion and rage-quitting caused by such decisions.

Code: [Select]
alienMissions:
  - type: STR_ALIEN_TERROR
    despawnEvenIfTargeted: true # followers will automatically return to base
    points: 10
    objective: 3
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Yankes on February 05, 2017, 02:04:21 pm
Why not simply show in that case "ufo tracking lost" with different text?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on February 05, 2017, 03:09:29 pm
Why not simply show in that case "ufo tracking lost" with different text?

Added.

Btw. the disclaimer is not about notification, but about mixing missions, which despawn with missions which don't.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on February 05, 2017, 03:24:28 pm
Thank you!

I didn't think it was necessary, but after a truckload of feedback it looks inevitable.

And yeah, I take all blame on myself. :) I think I'll just put this flag on all missions.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on February 23, 2017, 12:17:52 pm
Quote
Define random number of civilians
Defining a number random of civilians in deployment, for example 4-20. Currently it’s a fixed number with some mysterious randomization.
The range can be affected by difficulty level, if it already influences the number.

Current randomization is 50% - 100%.
So if "civilians: 16", it will be a random number between 8 and 16.

If there are no free spawn points, game tries to place them near other civilians (which should usually be successful, but has a small chance of failing if there are too many units on battlescape in total). If this fails too, civilian is not placed.

Is this enough random?

Quote
Custom factions in battles
Facilities: required staff (soldiers)

I suggest moving these 2 to "scrapped" section.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on February 23, 2017, 05:14:47 pm
Current randomization is 50% - 100%.
So if "civilians: 16", it will be a random number between 8 and 16.

If there are no free spawn points, game tries to place them near other civilians (which should usually be successful, but has a small chance of failing if there are too many units on battlescape in total). If this fails too, civilian is not placed.

Is this enough random?

Yes, it's clear enough, thank you. However it's not the random number that is the main problem, but control over what spawns. (Sorry I haven't explained it well enough before, I failed at reading what I wrote and forgot half the sentence somehow. My bad.)

For example, I have a mission where you are supposed to rescue a council member from an assassination attempt. Civilians for this mission are: the council member, some bodyguards and some servants. With how it is now, there is no guarantee that the council member will spawn at all, or that only one spawns. If she doesn't spawn, then the mission is pretty much pointless and you must repeat it (and because you have no control over where she spawns, there's a significant probability that she will be dead anyway before you get to her, so repeating this mission will probably be inevitable even without the mission VIP). And having two or more is acceptable in this case (if awkward), but in some other mission it could be a big problem.

So, the best thing would be something analogous to alien deployments, where you could define the numbers of civilians of a particular type. I know it's probably complicated, and perhaps impractical, but I thought I'd at least ask, since you added the recoverable civilians feature already (which is a great thing).

I suggest moving these 2 to "scrapped" section.

The first one was requested by Dioxine, so I'll have to talk to him first.

The second one... why exactly? Is it because you don't want to do it, or because it's a bad design idea? If it's that you don't want to do it, then it's perfectly fine, but then I'd rather keep in on the list because, well, I still want it and it's my wishlist after all - maybe someone else would give it a try. And if you think it's bad design, then I'd like to hear some arguments - because honestly, I have tons of ideas on how to use it that would not be possible without it.

---===---

And now, I actually came to this thread because I wanted to enter another request: an additional button on the mission marker screen. Something like this:

(https://i.imgur.com/ZVY4VkM.png)

With all the new options available - starting conditions, weather, timers, allied units and all - it becomes increasingly difficult to prepare for a mission without knowing exactly what it entails. This (optional) button would be a place to put down this information to tell the player that, for example, they will lose unequipped items (like in the mansion in Piratez) or that they should dress appropriately for cold weather, or to bring extra anti-tank equipment. The only other place to put it is the briefing, which is too late to prepare (well, except for swapping weapons you have on board anyway).

Ruleset-wise, this would be done by adding this to the alienDeployments:
Code: [Select]
    alertDescription: STR_ALIENS_TERRORISE_DESCRIPTION
And the appropriate string to the language.
If alertDescription is not present in the deployment, the DETAILS button doesn't appear.

What do you think?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on February 23, 2017, 05:32:24 pm
It would be enough if 'details' showed briefing... up to modder to decide how much info he's going to disclose in the briefing... Could be a bit immersion-breaking, tho, dunno.

Well, if 'facilities require staff' was scrapped, I can only express my sadness about this fact, had plans with that.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on February 23, 2017, 05:35:55 pm
It would be enough if 'details' showed briefing... up to modder to decide how much info he's going to disclose in the briefing... Could be a bit immersion-breaking, tho, dunno.

I thought so too. Many briefing say something like "we have landed in..." etc., which isn't true if you haven't left your base yet. And I think it doesn't make a big difference code-wise whether the button points to the briefing string or some other string (you can still use the same one in the ruleset if you want).

Well, if 'facilities require staff' was scrapped, I can only express my sadness about this fact, had plans with that.

OK, so I'll wait for the final decision.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: ivandogovich on February 23, 2017, 06:35:59 pm
Ivan's Wish appended to Solar's Wishlist (because Ivan is a Leech):

Allow Multiple Background images to be defined for a particular mission.  This would allow for more variety in the Hidden Movement screens ala XCom Apocalypse.  Purely cosmetic, but more immersion building.

ie:
Code: [Select]
extraSprites:
  - type: TAC00.SCR
    singleImage: false #default is "true"
    width: 320
    height: 200
    files:
      0: backgrounds/Back_33_Cus.gif
      1: backgrounds/Back_34_Cus.gif
      2: backgrounds/Back_34_Cus.gif

I did try simply setting singleImage: to false, but this had no effect, or didn't load.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on February 25, 2017, 11:36:40 am
Ruleset-wise, this would be done by adding this to the alienDeployments:
Code: [Select]
    alertDescription: STR_ALIENS_TERRORISE_DESCRIPTION
And the appropriate string to the language.
If alertDescription is not present in the deployment, the DETAILS button doesn't appear.

What do you think?

Done.

Code: [Select]
alienDeployments:
  - type: STR_LOC_SPACE_STATION_3
    alert: STR_ALERT_ORBIT
    alertDescription: STR_ALERT_ORBIT_INFO
    briefing:
      palette: 3
      background: ORBIT_BACKGROUND.SCR

Code: [Select]
extraStrings:
  - type: en-US
    strings:
      STR_INFO: "INFO"
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on February 25, 2017, 01:07:05 pm
Allow Multiple Background images to be defined for a particular mission.  This would allow for more variety in the Hidden Movement screens ala XCom Apocalypse.  Purely cosmetic, but more immersion building.

Background is randomly chosen during briefing and stays the same during the battle.
(Unless you reload, in which case it turns into default... take that, cheaters!).

Code: [Select]
hiddenMovementBackgrounds:
  - TAC00.SCR
  - TAC01.SCR # DON'T use this one, it will be cut off on the edges, which you don't want
  - BACK04.SCR # use other existing backgrounds on your own risk, I'd create new ones, just to be sure...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on February 25, 2017, 05:50:41 pm
Yes, it's clear enough, thank you. However it's not the random number that is the main problem, but control over what spawns. (Sorry I haven't explained it well enough before, I failed at reading what I wrote and forgot half the sentence somehow. My bad.)

For example, I have a mission where you are supposed to rescue a council member from an assassination attempt. Civilians for this mission are: the council member, some bodyguards and some servants. With how it is now, there is no guarantee that the council member will spawn at all, or that only one spawns. If she doesn't spawn, then the mission is pretty much pointless and you must repeat it (and because you have no control over where she spawns, there's a significant probability that she will be dead anyway before you get to her, so repeating this mission will probably be inevitable even without the mission VIP). And having two or more is acceptable in this case (if awkward), but in some other mission it could be a big problem.

So, the best thing would be something analogous to alien deployments, where you could define the numbers of civilians of a particular type. I know it's probably complicated, and perhaps impractical, but I thought I'd at least ask, since you added the recoverable civilians feature already (which is a great thing).

Done.

Code: [Select]
alienDeployments:
  - type: STR_LOC_LOKNAR_VILLAGE_DEFENSE
    civilians: 0 # no random civilians
    civiliansByType:
      STR_SECTOID_COMMANDER: 1 # yes, now he's a civilian (not for diary purposes tho, can't fool the race)
      STR_HUMAN_FATMAN: 4 # with 2-4 sumo guards

Actual number is 50% to 100%, rounded UP.
(as opposed to "civilians", which is rounded down).

Rounding up works like this:

Code: [Select]
0 = 0 to 0
1 = 1 to 1
2 = 1 to 2
3 = 2 to 3
4 = 2 to 4
5 = 3 to 5
6 = 3 to 6
7 = 4 to 7
etc.

PS: you can combine random civilians and civilians by type if you want
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on February 25, 2017, 06:06:12 pm
Whoa, that was quick... I can't add features fast enough to keep up with your changes! :D
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on February 25, 2017, 06:16:55 pm
I'll leave this to Yankes if he wants, not going into other man's cabbage:
- Global damageAlter per type
- More than 1 damage type per bullet
- Alternate animation for overkill

Open for anyone who wants:
- Terrain trampling by AI units
- X-Com craft crash sites
- Random Manufacturing ... IMO stupid
- Facilities: required staff (soldiers) ... IMO bad idea

Isn't that already possible?
- Multiple UFOs/crafts

On my long-term TODO list:
- Terrain destruction by melee
- Commendation Bonuses ... waiting for OXCE 3.7 to see what Yankes will change
- More info on weapons ... stats for nerds
- More info on armours ... stats for nerds
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Yankes on February 25, 2017, 08:18:59 pm
I'll leave this to Yankes if he wants, not going into other man's cabbage:
- Global damageAlter per type
- More than 1 damage type per bullet
- Alternate animation for overkill
Done, Done, Done, probably not in 100% but very closely, mostly you will need do something like this:
https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,5245.msg78932.html#msg78932
Alternative animation is doable too, I will prepare some scripts that will show example fo this.

Quote
Commendation Bonuses ... waiting for OXCE 3.7 to see what Yankes will change
Right now there be no big changes in 3.7 aside of multi layer battlescape, I decide not hoarding it and release before I do all my stuff I planed for 3.7.
Probably this will be tomorrow or next day, I need finish one thing I have half done and test and merge ohartenstein23 changes.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on February 25, 2017, 08:29:00 pm
Right now there be no big changes in 3.7 aside of multi layer battlescape, I decide not hoarding it and release before I do all my stuff I planed for 3.7.
Probably this will be tomorrow or next day, I need finish one thing I have half done and test and merge ohartenstein23 changes.

Great, I like that!
Frequent releases are good, we have literally endless supply of version numbers :)

Are you going to merge latest nightly too?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Yankes on February 25, 2017, 09:00:18 pm
Are you going to merge latest nightly too?
Yes
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: nrafield on February 27, 2017, 08:48:10 pm
I've noticed that my laptop literally does not have the Scroll Lock key. As such, I am unable to try out the night vision mode, so I'd appreciate if it was possible to rebind it to another key. What does it do anyway?

Another thing that would be nice is if there was a key allowing you to put a single weapon back into ship inventory during preparations. Sometimes it just happens that multiple pages of the ship inventory are filled up, it doesn't scroll to a new page, and there's simply no room to put down an item manually without removing all equipment from a soldier.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: ohartenstein23 on February 27, 2017, 09:09:36 pm
I've noticed that my laptop literally does not have the Scroll Lock key. As such, I am unable to try out the night vision mode, so I'd appreciate if it was possible to rebind it to another key. What does it do anyway?

Another thing that would be nice is if there was a key allowing you to put a single weapon back into ship inventory during preparations. Sometimes it just happens that multiple pages of the ship inventory are filled up, it doesn't scroll to a new page, and there's simply no room to put down an item manually without removing all equipment from a soldier.

Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on March 27, 2017, 09:06:19 pm
Random base names
At building a new base, when you are prompted for name, there would be a string already - you can delete it or just press Enter. (Of course you can also rename the base late, like always.) The names would be taken from a file analogous to .nam.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: RSSwizard on April 01, 2017, 09:42:04 pm
  • Hold CTRL, then Left-Click on an item to automatically remove from inventory to floor.

hot damn that makes life alot easier, I was wishing for something like that
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: bluberd on April 03, 2017, 11:24:33 am
hot damn that makes life alot easier, I was wishing for something like that
same here, nice.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on April 09, 2017, 10:57:05 pm
For the random base names, I have prepared a first version of the name file. You just roll baseFirst and baseLast to get a two word name.

Other name types are also possible, like for example "X of the Y" - up for discussion.

My literally first tests gave me the following results:
- Red Port
- Succubus Hold
- Diamond Oasis
- Mysterious Bosom
- Ghostly Fortress
- Winged Fang
- Hawk Oasis
- Eagle Fang
- Winged Pride
- Vengeful Trap

EDIT: Another feature, already well received on the Discord channel.

Research: false for Ufopaedia articles
Now they have research required flag. It would be neat if there was also a research: false flag, so the article is only displayed if you don't have the research. It would make some things less confusing. Like Extractor - today there was a bug report that it has no Ufopaedia entry, even though you start with it. For example, the Extractor in Piratez should have two articles: one before, one after it is researched (The first one saying something like, "A room with a deep shaft, full of complex machinery. We should inspect it to get more details."
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on April 22, 2017, 02:57:54 am
So, I know we've established, more or less, that there isn't really a practical way to turn off temporarily the national funding.  However, I had an idea that I want to check on:

Is it possible to have the score and funding be tracked, but you not get that funding until you do some sort of research?  Have it be how much they'd be willing to pay for you to go away and bother someone else? Probably unlocked through communications.

I thought of this while wondering about funding from the Uber kingdom showing up after you research civilization, as a society without visible land, it could be eventually a stable source of funding.  Unless of course someone wanted to set up changing borders when something interesting happens.

If that is possible, and more importantly, worth the effort to do, we'd need early base costs to be approximately equal to what you can manufacture at game start, I believe that's selling moonshine.

Biggest cost in the starting base is the lab, I've suggested having it have two levels of cost, a very low one before you figure out the mainframe and the current one after.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on April 22, 2017, 11:40:10 am
None of this is possible either. But if you did some coding, maybe. Still, to completely rework all the lore and starting story? I came to terms with how it is now.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on April 23, 2017, 01:04:38 am
If I ever end up having the time and actually get around to relearning to code, maybe I'll try to figure it out.

But since you appear to be fine with how things are right now, in that area at least, I'm not going to actively worry about it. Also won't worry about it since I do like the current start.

Here's another idea, can't really call it a wish, as I'm not Solar  8), but if I ever get off my butt and actually work on the mod ideas floating around behind me, I'd find it useful, and I suspect others would as well:

A smaller hanger, I've heard we can't have 1x1 sized hangers, though I don't remember the reasons, so my idea is a 2x2 room that can have anywhere from 2 to 4 small ships based in it, I'm thinking nothing with more space than a pachyderm.  It would mostly be for fighters, maybe the tank could be built on it.  I imagine it costing about the same as the normal hanger, at least with maintenance.

My brain stopped working most of the way through that last paragraph, hopefully it makes at least some sense.  :P
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Eddie on April 23, 2017, 02:17:29 am
Maybe instead of making a new hangar, change ships so they can occupy "half" a hangar. Like the jetbike for instance, so you could have two jetbikes per hangar. Fractional hangar space variable does sound like it is either really easy to implement or impossible.
But if implemented, I can see uses for xfiles as well. Public transport should not require a hangar at all really.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on April 23, 2017, 01:03:38 pm
It is easy to make 1x1 hangar, it would be able to hold any craft, tho. In any case, I don't really feel the need. 2x2 size puts a nice soft limit on aircraft spam.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on May 08, 2017, 07:49:00 pm
Hi Meridian,

After so many months of fruitful and exciting development of OXCE+, I have decided to revisit and reevaluate all the features that have not been implemented yet. While all proposed features are still valid, some of them seem more important then others and some have lost some importance because of other features that are already in or because my creative vision shifted. This could be informative as additional input.

1. GLOBAL DAMAGE ALTER PER TYPE
Priority: very low
Justification: While it would be helpful, I have accepted that this would be difficult/controversial to implement. Since we can do the same with individual weapons, and the bulk of my work there has already been done, I don't really care much any more.
A more general system for inheriting parts of item definition would be awesome though.

2. MORE THAN 1 DAMAGE TYPE PER BULLET
Priority: low
Justification: With the new definable damage types, the need for multiple damage types per attack has significantly diminished. For example instead of making an AP bullet which also deals electric damage, I can simply create a new damage type and match armours accordingly. Again, this is much more work for me, but it is doable.

3. TERRAIN DESTRUCTION BY MELEE
Priority: high
Justification: Lack of this feature has been a pain since melee weapons were added, and nothing has changed here. Half-assed solutions like 1-tile "ranged" weapons are not really satisfactory, and impossibility of using a machete to damage a bush is frustrating.

4. TERRAIN TRAMPLING BY AI UNITS
Priority: medium
Justification: Reaper rampaging through walls would be a fun feature to have, and it would make the AI more unpredictable. Small features like this one, when aggregated, make for a better, more complex and enjoyable experience. Still, it's a small addition, which in itself wouldn't impact the game all that much. Desireable, but not a high priority.

5. ALTERNATE ANIMATION FOR OVERKILL
Priority: medium
Justification: A purely aesthetic thing, but adding it would really enhance the experience. Ludicrous Gibs are a trope for a reason, and some weapons just aren't the same without it. Plus it seems (to a layman like me) to be relatively easy to add.

6. MULTIPLE UFOS/CRAFTS
Priority: low
Justification: You can circumvent this problem by using UFOs with the same tilesets, which makes this feature a little less urgent. I'd probably place it at medium priority, but I already learned to live without it without much loss.

7. COMMENDATION BONUSES
Priority: high
Justification: Well... I have plans. Dioxine has plans. This feature would revolutionize (in a good way) the RPG aspect of the game. Frankly, I have a metaphorical boner when I think about the possibilities. :P

8. MORE INFO ON WEAPONS (aka "stats for nerds button")
Priority: medium
Justification: Typing all this additional stuff in every single weapon description is tedious as all hell. Yeah, we could live without it, but a) it feels liek typical pointless work which should be automated and b) the end result will never be as good as an standardized output.

9. MORE INFO ON ARMOURS
Priority: medium
Justification: Same as above.

10. X-COM CRAFT CRASH SITES
Priority: very low
Justification: I don't even know how I would want to use this feature. Would have probably removed it long ago, but some other modders expressed interest in it, so I'm keeping it for now.

11. RANDOM MANUFACTURING
Priority: low
Justification: I know you don't like this idea, but I have some potential uses for it - mostly to do away with some random treasure lists, which are awesome but not optimal in some cases. Still, nothing really revolutionary.

12. RANDOM BASE NAMES
Priority: medium
Justification: Another seemingly superficial, but in my opinion fun feature that adds to the fluff. Besides, I love writing generators!

13. RESEARCH: FALSE FOR UFOPAEDIA ARTICLES
Priority: high
Justification: Lack of this option causes confusion with some Piratez players and there's no other way of clearing it up easily (without sacrificing some gameplay).

14. FACILITIES: REQUIRED STAFF (SOLDIERS)
Priority: low
Justification: I think we have all accepted that this wouldn't happen anytime soon. Anyway, it's not my request and I have never really been interested in it personally, so it's hard for me to evaluate its value.

15. (not on the list but requested elsewhere) MID-BATTLE REINFORCEMENTS FOR THE AI
Priority: very high
Justification: I literally have several missions already designed (and some of it even made!) around this concept. Definitely a must have for almost any tactical game which is supposed to cover various scenarios, and OXCE+ as a whole moves X-Com in that area.

16. (not on the list but requested elsewhere) SPAWN ITEMS/UNITS MID-BATTLE
Priority: medium
Justification: This is something that comes back again and again in various forms from various people. Well, you can't make a Brainsucker Launcher without it! And it would allow for things like deployable turrets, spawned from items in hand.

If there is something else I have forgotten, please let me know.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Eddie on May 08, 2017, 09:01:35 pm
In the OXCE subforum there was the suggestion of accuracy reduction for indirect fire, meaning you only get full accuracy for aiming at tiles your unit can actually see.
I like that idea a lot, as it severely limits the major advantage the player has over the AI (sniper spotter tactics). In the reverse, I would also love to see the AI beeing taught how to do sniper spotter tactics, limited by intelligence. The intelligence check could be for all availiable units (high intelligence commander telling his troops what to do), so killing the commander would actually change the enemy tactics (no more sniper spotter tactics if troops are too stupid). Also, you would actually notice a difference between intelligent and dumb enemies.

If these features are ever implemented, it would severely change the battlescape gameplay. If it's implemented sooner rather than later, modders have more time to adjust content.

I can think of one more AI improvement that is easy to implement: Kamikaze flag.
If a unit has the kamikaze flag, skip the retreat algorithm (fleeing when too many opponents spotted). Useful for zombies.
Kamikaze behaviour could also be triggered by low intelligence if a seperate parameter is not wanted.

I know Meridian doesn't want to touch AI code, but there are some really low hanging fruit that would do much to improve/diversify gameplay.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Ragshak on May 08, 2017, 11:20:28 pm
Would be nice to see (alongside movement arrows and TU left) how much energy will be avaible after movement.
Would like to see 1h spear.
Would like to see 2h lance with 2 hex reach.
Would like to see for throwing weapons (like javelins or throwing axes) option to "swing"/or/"thrust" with them in melee.
Would like to see upgraded ALT option  so it would tell which spotted enemies see selected gal at the moment.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on May 09, 2017, 12:33:08 am
In the OXCE subforum there was the suggestion of accuracy reduction for indirect fire, meaning you only get full accuracy for aiming at tiles your unit can actually see.

Yes, I tohught about it too, many times... But I don't have a model yet I'd feel confident about. ;)

In the reverse, I would also love to see the AI beeing taught how to do sniper spotter tactics, limited by intelligence. The intelligence check could be for all availiable units (high intelligence commander telling his troops what to do), so killing the commander would actually change the enemy tactics (no more sniper spotter tactics if troops are too stupid). Also, you would actually notice a difference between intelligent and dumb enemies.

Hmmm... Worth experimenting on. But not idea how it'd turn out.

I can think of one more AI improvement that is easy to implement: Kamikaze flag.
If a unit has the kamikaze flag, skip the retreat algorithm (fleeing when too many opponents spotted). Useful for zombies.
Kamikaze behaviour could also be triggered by low intelligence if a seperate parameter is not wanted.

Yeah, that'd be nice.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on May 09, 2017, 01:33:28 am
Kamikaze would lower the "crap, Cryssallid close to my troops, everyone is gonna die! Wait, is it dancing?" scenario.

Having a seperate scent range, for things like zombies, or an intelligence check when you actually fire a weapon around zombies or other sound or whatever based creatures for them to zero in on.  Like you fire a loud gun and any zombie will head to that location unless they actively notice a better target, or scorpions will flee from loud noises.  It could add to the tactical choices if you have a decent idea of how the enemy ought to react.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on May 09, 2017, 12:48:08 pm
Zombies have sense/psi vision, so this part is already in.

A sound system is another matter, for now not really planned.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: khade on May 10, 2017, 01:42:09 am
When you get too close to zombies, it's kind of terrifying.  Maybe it's that I haven't yet run into a crysallid since aggression was boosted, but other melee units I've seen aren't nearly as scary as a zombie showing up 5 spaces away from your gal, say because you're clearing buildings, and biting 4+ times.  Problem is getting the zombie to that point, as they're still wishy-washy.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on May 10, 2017, 08:47:14 pm
When you get too close to zombies, it's kind of terrifying.  Maybe it's that I haven't yet run into a crysallid since aggression was boosted, but other melee units I've seen aren't nearly as scary as a zombie showing up 5 spaces away from your gal, say because you're clearing buildings, and biting 4+ times.  Problem is getting the zombie to that point, as they're still wishy-washy.

Yes... I will add the kamikaze mode to the list. (I avoided AI-related requests up until now, but I'll do it just this time.)
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: legionof1 on May 11, 2017, 12:47:31 am
Given the new CQC checks, is it possible to setup gunbutt strikes to override snapshot as the reaction action while adjacent?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on May 11, 2017, 12:58:19 am
Given the new CQC checks, is it possible to setup gunbutt strikes to override snapshot as the reaction action while adjacent?

But what is the shot is way stronger? Would that be settable via ruleset, item by item? Or do you propose some general rule?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: legionof1 on May 11, 2017, 01:32:26 am
More an accuracy issue. Given that the CQC check is [([Melee x .5+Reaction x.5]x.65)-dodge] the net chance to succeed will be considerably lower then melee butt strike accuracy.

The majority of butt strikes are .8x(50+1/2 melee) which is far more likely to hit.

Example with 100 melee and reactions vs 0 dodge.

CQC check: [([100 x.5+100 x.5]x.65)-0]=65%

Butt strike: [(50x.5)+50]x.8=80% 

Even at max stats the CQC check is only 84% vs butt strike 96%

Accuracy is not hidden from the player while penetration and dmg are. Given multiple options, put emphasis on the one the player can see without rule diving. Ideally a comparative check between snap and strike options, would be the best statistical solution for success but that both be more work to code and less realistic.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 02, 2017, 08:03:53 pm
Meridian, your most recent addition (sequential getOneFree) reminds me of my request for additional prerequisites of getOneFree items.

I understand that putting a request right after you delivered a nice new feature may seem a little... thankless... But I guess it's a good moment to bring back this idea. The reason is simple: I need it, and badly.

What exactly is it about? I think I never managed to convey the idea properly. So let my try again. This is what I need:

Code: [Select]
  - name: STR_SOME_ALIEN
    getOneFree:
      - STR_RESEARCH_ONE
      - STR_RESEARCH_TWO
      - STR_RESEARCH_THREE
      - STR_RESEARCH_FOUR
      - STR_RESEARCH_FIVE # requires STR_UFO_POWER_SOURCE
      - STR_RESEARCH_SIX # requires STR_UFO_POWER_SOURCE
      - STR_RESEARCH_SEVEN # requires STR_UFO_NAVIGATION
      - STR_RESEARCH_EIGHT # requires STR_MUTON_AUTOPSY and STR_BATTLESHIP

As you can guess:
- Researches 1 - 4 work as normal.
- Researches 5 - 6 can only be picked if you have STR_UFO_POWER_SOURCE. If you don't have it, the game never picks it. If you have no other getOneFree available (all are researched), you cannot research this item until you get STR_UFO_POWER_SOURCE.
- Similarly, research 7 can only be picked if you have STR_UFO_NAVIGATION.
- Research 8 - same, but with two prerequisites, not one.


Inb4 1. This is a n00btrap, like the TFTD tech tree! What if you research all getOneFree before you research the prerequisite? You won't even know you can research the item again when you finally get the prerequisite!

Answer: yes, it's a potential problem, if you plan your mod carelessly. I am confident in my abilities to not screw the player over, though. :) The most obvious methods include:
- Don't hide critical stuff behind this.
- Don't do it on rare items.
- Give it to a number of items.
- All of the above.
TL;DR, I'll manage.

Inb4 2. Why do something like this at all? It is so convoluted! Why would anyone need that?

Okay, let me finally explain why I need it! The truth is, it is not for gameplay purposes like balance or difficulty management; it is because of story/fluff elements. And no, nothing to do with RPG-like ideas. :)

My idea for X-Com Files was mostly inspired by the new XCom: among the nameless scientists, workers and janitors you have several named characters, like Dr. Vansen or Bradford. Their function is mostly to author reports specific to their field, and also to act as prerequisites for certain researches. The latter idea works because you only start with four people (Quartermaster, Chief Accountant, Intelligence Officer and Chief Medical Officer), and you can recruit another four during your campaign (Military Envoy, Chief Scientist, Xenologist and Chief Engineer).

A typical article from a staff member looks like this:
(http://i.imgur.com/2vqeOe3.png)

But that's not all! These characters also have a special kind of "research reports" that essentially have no value other than (poor) entertainment. For example this:

(http://i.imgur.com/SaOsO4Z.png)

Well... the truth is, it's not just for fun, it's also to make interrogations more random. These "staff input" reports are always getOneFrees from interrogations, to make them more varied and unpredictable.

This is a typical research item from X-Com Files:

Code: [Select]
  - name: STR_SYNDICATE_AGENT
    requiresBaseFunc: [INTLAB]
    cost: 10
    points: 10
    needItem: true
    destroyItem: true
    unlocks:
      - STR_SYNDICATE
    getOneFree:
      - STR_PISTOL
      - STR_SMG
      - STR_BLACKOPS_SHOTGUN
      - STR_BLACKOPS_MAGNUM
      - STR_DOSSIER_ILYA_DOLVICH
      - STR_DOSSIER_HARLEY_STONE
      - STR_DOSSIER_IVAN_VASLOV
      - STR_DOSSIER_TERRENCE_LOCKHART
      - STR_DOSSIER_ERNIE_LLOYD_SOBATKA
      - STR_DOSSIER_CARLOS_TANAKA
      - STR_DOSSIER_ELIAS_SEPPA
      - STR_DOSSIER_OWEN_HOFFER
      - STR_DOSSIER_KIM_HARWELL
      - STR_DOSSIER_MONICA_GRUMMANN
      - STR_DOSSIER_TYVARIUS_STIENBURG
      - STR_DOSSIER_GERTRUDE_ELLISON
      - STR_DOSSIER_HENRY_GARRISON
      - STR_STAFF_001
      - STR_STAFF_002
      - STR_STAFF_003
      - STR_STAFF_007
      - STR_STAFF_008
      - STR_STAFF_009
      - STR_STAFF_010
      - STR_STAFF_012

As you can see, this individual can give you three types of getOneFree: 1) weapons, 2) dossiers on various enemy agents and 3) staff input articles. Weapons give you weapon knowledge (and associated points), dossiers give you fluff articles (and associated points) and staff inputs are there only for entertainment or just frustration. Please don't judge me, sometimes modding is also about weird crap like that.

Now, we finally get to the point. Each staff input has, obviously, a staff member who is the author of the message. But please remember that half of these people are recruited at some later point in the game. This means that I have to be extra careful: a prisoner should never give a staff input article from someone who wasn't even recruited yet! This means that I can only give such getOneFrees to prisoners that I am 100% sure can only be caught after this particular person was recruited. And this is a bit of a bummer, since most factions appear regardless of whether you have recruited a particular person or not; otherwise it would be a terribly artificial limitation. So I have very little articles from the recruitable people, and they can only be found on a small number of specific prisoners that I know can only appear when these guys are already present. Das ist die ganze Sache.

Perhaps you will say that this reason is too insubstantial to invest the effort in it, as it doesn't influence tactical game at all. I would understand that. But I also consider this feature - I mean, the recruitable people and the staff input articles - as core X-Com Files feature; it was planned something like two years ago and I still consider it very important to the mod (for the same reason I appreciate and love the Solar Courier in Piratez, many articles for which I wrote myself). Therefore I would deeply appreciate a possibility to only allow certain getOneFree items to be researched if you already have a prerequisite - in this case, a person recruited. And of course, it would probably have various other uses too.

Please consider this option.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 02, 2017, 10:50:19 pm
This is just crazy... there must be a better way to do the same... I'll try to come up with options.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: KiriKaneko on August 02, 2017, 11:26:04 pm
I suggest the ZZZ sign on KO units changes colour the higher their stun is, giving players an idea of how much time they have to wake them. I'd also like to suggest it take a bit longer for them to die from high stun
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 02, 2017, 11:28:15 pm
This is just crazy... there must be a better way to do the same... I'll try to come up with options.

Thanks! I'm open for suggestions.

I suggest the ZZZ sign on KO units changes colour the higher their stun is, giving players an idea of how much time they have to wake them. I'd also like to suggest it take a bit longer for them to die from high stun

Not a bad idea. Very rough, but worth considering.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 04, 2017, 05:45:43 pm
Thanks! I'm open for suggestions.

Code: [Select]
research:
  - name: STR_BOTH
    cost: 0
    dependencies:
      - STR_MEDI_KIT
      - STR_MOTION_SCANNER
  - name: STR_SECTOID_NAVIGATOR
    sequentialGetOneFree: true      # getOneFree topics will be given in sequential order, not random
    getOneFree:
      - STR_ALIEN_RESEARCH          # free
      - STR_ALIEN_HARVEST           # free
                                    #
                                    # getOneFreeProtected topics will *NOT* be given in sequential order!!
                                    #  - The 3 groups (A, B, A+B) can be read from the file in a different order by YAML
                                    #  - Within the group itself, they will be given sequentially though
    getOneFreeProtected:
      STR_MEDI_KIT:
        - STR_ALIEN_ABDUCTION       # not free, requires A (medikit)
        - STR_ALIEN_TERROR          # not free, requires A
      STR_MOTION_SCANNER:
        - STR_ALIEN_BASE            # not free, requires B (scanner)
        - STR_ALIEN_SUPPLY          # not free, requires B
      STR_BOTH:
        - STR_ALIEN_RETALIATION     # not free, requires A+B
        - STR_ALIEN_INFILTRATION    # not free, requires A+B

This way I can at least somehow visually show it in the tech tree viewer...
 - white label = discovered prerequisite
 - golden label = undiscovered prerequisite
Still not very fond of this craziness to be honest...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 04, 2017, 09:09:34 pm
But I am. :) I like it a lot. :D

Great job. Can't wait!
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 05, 2017, 03:45:45 pm
I have "exclusive research" on todo list from you, but can't find the thread about it... so I post here.

It was implemented here: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,5482.msg86298.html#msg86298
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 08, 2017, 11:49:33 pm
Great!

This will revolutionize Piratez. :)

EDIT:

So... How do I use getOneFreeProtected? Sorry, but I can't make heads or tails of this example...
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 08, 2017, 11:53:39 pm
Simpler example:

Code: [Select]
research:
  - name: STR_SECTOID_NAVIGATOR
    getOneFree:
      - STR_ALIEN_RESEARCH          # no requirement
      - STR_ALIEN_HARVEST           # no requirement
    getOneFreeProtected:
      STR_MEDI_KIT:
        - STR_ALIEN_ABDUCTION       # requires medikit researched
        - STR_ALIEN_TERROR          # requires medikit researched
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on August 09, 2017, 07:44:52 pm
Ah thanks, I understand now.

Sorry, there were many ways to interpret the code, and I didn't feel like trying all of them. :)

On a different topic, shouldn't this thread be moved to OXCE+ subforum?
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on August 09, 2017, 10:35:41 pm
On a different topic, shouldn't this thread be moved to OXCE+ subforum?

Would be nice.
There are many threads that should be moved, but I don't have the rights to do it myself and I don't want to bother the admins each time.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Dioxine on August 09, 2017, 10:50:01 pm
OK I will move it.
Title: Re: Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on September 15, 2019, 01:53:14 pm
Gladly!

Here's a list of suggestions - for the current commendations and some potential new ones, too. (Co-produced with Dioxine.)

See here: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,7405.0.html
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 14, 2019, 06:06:23 pm
@Solarius: can we have this list processed and updated as a new post? just to see what's still outstanding.

https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4830.msg82753.html#msg82753
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on October 15, 2019, 12:55:38 am
Sure, I updated the list and the file:

1. GLOBAL DAMAGE ALTER PER TYPE
Priority: very low
Justification: While it would be helpful, I have accepted that this would be difficult/controversial to implement. Since we can do the same with individual weapons, and the bulk of my work there has already been done, I don't really care much any more.
A more general system for inheriting parts of item definition would be awesome though.

1. MORE THAN 1 DAMAGE TYPE PER BULLET
Priority: low
Justification: With the new definable damage types, the need for multiple damage types per attack has significantly diminished. For example instead of making an AP bullet which also deals electric damage, I can simply create a new damage type and match armours accordingly. Again, this is much more work for me, but it is doable.

2. TERRAIN DESTRUCTION BY MELEE
Priority: high
Justification: Lack of this feature has been a pain since melee weapons were added, and nothing has changed here. Half-assed solutions like 1-tile "ranged" weapons are not really satisfactory, and impossibility of using a machete to damage a bush is frustrating.

3. TERRAIN TRAMPLING BY AI UNITS
Priority: medium
Justification: Reaper rampaging through walls would be a fun feature to have, and it would make the AI more unpredictable. Small features like this one, when aggregated, make for a better, more complex and enjoyable experience. Still, it's a small addition, which in itself wouldn't impact the game all that much. Desireable, but not a high priority.

4. ALTERNATE ANIMATION FOR OVERKILL
Priority: medium
Justification: A purely aesthetic thing, but adding it would really enhance the experience. Ludicrous Gibs are a trope for a reason, and some weapons just aren't the same without it. Plus it seems (to a layman like me) to be relatively easy to add.

5. MULTIPLE UFOS/CRAFTS
Priority: low
Justification: You can circumvent this problem by using UFOs with the same tilesets, which makes this feature a little less urgent. I'd probably place it at medium priority, but I already learned to live without it without much loss.

6. X-COM CRAFT CRASH SITES
Priority: very low
Justification: I don't even know how I would want to use this feature. Would have probably removed it long ago, but some other modders expressed interest in it, so I'm keeping it for now.

7. RESEARCH: FALSE FOR UFOPAEDIA ARTICLES
Priority: medium
Justification: Lack of this option causes confusion with some Piratez players and there's no other way of clearing it up easily (without sacrificing some gameplay).

8. FACILITIES: REQUIRED STAFF (SOLDIERS)
Priority: low
Justification: I think we have all accepted that this wouldn't happen anytime soon. Anyway, it's not my request and I have never really been interested in it personally, so it's hard for me to evaluate its value.

9. (not on the list but requested elsewhere) MID-BATTLE REINFORCEMENTS FOR THE AI
Priority: very high
Justification: I literally have several missions already designed (and some of it even made!) around this concept. Definitely a must have for almost any tactical game which is supposed to cover various scenarios, and OXCE+ as a whole moves X-Com in that area.

Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Precentor Apollyon on October 15, 2019, 01:34:44 am
I see 6 is the most exciting among the list. The other are interesting enough but more cosmetic in reasons. I once propose having the crash site of xcom craft treated as a temp Base. Alien can attack again and again until the survivors can be “transferred” out by a rescuing craft.


But it is a nebulous idea as some had suggested.

EDIT: (Meridian) Continuation here: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,7490.0.html
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 16, 2019, 11:58:33 am
DEV update:

0. GLOBAL DAMAGE ALTER PER TYPE
Priority: very low
Justification: While it would be helpful, I have accepted that this would be difficult/controversial to implement. Since we can do the same with individual weapons, and the bulk of my work there has already been done, I don't really care much any more.
A more general system for inheriting parts of item definition would be awesome though.

Changing default values technically requires either:
1. not changing them at all, store both modded value and modded default value and decide real-time, which one to use... which is inefficient, prone to errors and cannot be generalized... it's used on a few places, but it's an extreme PITA and cannot be used on larger scale
2. creating a completely new secondary mod system that is processed before the current mod system... just to have the default values prepared before any of the primary mod stuff is processed... that's a huge amount of work, for very questionable benefit

You can basically consider this request as rejected.

A workaround/compromise I can offer is to create a few templates and use refNode attribute to inherit from templates when creating new items, armors, etc.

1. MORE THAN 1 DAMAGE TYPE PER BULLET
Priority: low
Justification: With the new definable damage types, the need for multiple damage types per attack has significantly diminished. For example instead of making an AP bullet which also deals electric damage, I can simply create a new damage type and match armours accordingly. Again, this is much more work for me, but it is doable.

No.
I don't see any good way how to implement a mechanic so different from everything else... without breaking everything else.

If you want, you can override the heck out of everything using Yankes-scripts... but the result is your responsibility.

2. TERRAIN DESTRUCTION BY MELEE
Priority: high
Justification: Lack of this feature has been a pain since melee weapons were added, and nothing has changed here. Half-assed solutions like 1-tile "ranged" weapons are not really satisfactory, and impossibility of using a machete to damage a bush is frustrating.

This is hard to do (both design and implementation), but it is todolisted and will eventually come, one way or another.

3. TERRAIN TRAMPLING BY AI UNITS
Priority: medium
Justification: Reaper rampaging through walls would be a fun feature to have, and it would make the AI more unpredictable. Small features like this one, when aggregated, make for a better, more complex and enjoyable experience. Still, it's a small addition, which in itself wouldn't impact the game all that much. Desireable, but not a high priority.

(IMO) not worth the effort.
It is a small feature gameplay-wise, but a very large feature (IMO) technically.

Not saying complete no, but it's on the very bottom of things I'd consider doing.

4. ALTERNATE ANIMATION FOR OVERKILL
Priority: medium
Justification: A purely aesthetic thing, but adding it would really enhance the experience. Ludicrous Gibs are a trope for a reason, and some weapons just aren't the same without it. Plus it seems (to a layman like me) to be relatively easy to add.

This one is for Yankes, I can't comment much.

It might already be possible using Y-scripts, or they could be extended to support this.

5. MULTIPLE UFOS/CRAFTS
Priority: low
Justification: You can circumvent this problem by using UFOs with the same tilesets, which makes this feature a little less urgent. I'd probably place it at medium priority, but I already learned to live without it without much loss.

No.
UFO crash/landing sites are limited to one UFO and one xcom craft.

Visually, you can create a craft that looks like two or more craft... see 40k.
Visually, you can create a UFO, which looks like multiple UFOs...
But in the background, there will always be just one of each.

6. X-COM CRAFT CRASH SITES
Priority: very low
Justification: I don't even know how I would want to use this feature. Would have probably removed it long ago, but some other modders expressed interest in it, so I'm keeping it for now.

No.

All discussions so far led to a conclusion this makes no sense... it's just an idea that pops up in people's minds... but after thinking a bit about it, most quickly reject it as "nonsense".

7. RESEARCH: FALSE FOR UFOPAEDIA ARTICLES
Priority: medium
Justification: Lack of this option causes confusion with some Piratez players and there's no other way of clearing it up easily (without sacrificing some gameplay).

What is this?

8. FACILITIES: REQUIRED STAFF (SOLDIERS)
Priority: low
Justification: I think we have all accepted that this wouldn't happen anytime soon. Anyway, it's not my request and I have never really been interested in it personally, so it's hard for me to evaluate its value.

Then don't put it on your list? :)

Anyway, Soldier Transformations now support transforming soldiers into items... so you can make a project that transforms your senior psi operative(s) into resource(s) required to build some advanced Psi facility for example... as requested by Nord.


9. (not on the list but requested elsewhere) MID-BATTLE REINFORCEMENTS FOR THE AI
Priority: very high
Justification: I literally have several missions already designed (and some of it even made!) around this concept. Definitely a must have for almost any tactical game which is supposed to cover various scenarios, and OXCE+ as a whole moves X-Com in that area.

On the todolist, should happen before or with OXCE 7.0.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Precentor Apollyon on October 16, 2019, 12:06:01 pm
MID-BATTLE REINFORCEMENTS FOR THE AI

Just curiosity. How would this be implemented? This for XCom or Alien? T

Thanks.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 16, 2019, 12:08:06 pm
MID-BATTLE REINFORCEMENTS FOR THE AI

Just curiosity. How would this be implemented?

It's not designed yet.
Feedback/suggestions welcome.

This for XCom or Alien? T

Thanks.

AI = Aliens.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Precentor Apollyon on October 16, 2019, 12:30:04 pm
Depend on what kind of reinforcement you are looking at. Alien soldiers? Terror weapons?

In my mod, I have a combo of undeployed egg type organic turrets, Head huggers that turn Soldiers into zombies and then Terror weapons. Terror weapon can also spawn more head huggers and the cycle repeats. Yet to include are Egg laying Terror weapons that laid turrets eggs. 

That's how it is done on mine.

You can't have another ufo landing in the middle of the battlescape mission. Or, you can have teleporters like in APOC. 

This is going to be extremely complicated coding Meridian. I will be honest. Might be as much as that rejected XCom crash site idea. I am not writing this was because I am resentful of that feature drop. Again, just being honest.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Precentor Apollyon on October 16, 2019, 12:37:17 pm
For 8. FACILITIES: REQUIRED STAFF (SOLDIERS)

Like you can put turrets on craft. You can spawn soldiers in Maps of xcom facilities?

One idea of mine is to convert a facility into a Turrets Bottleneck thing. Multiple turrets in a facility, act as a bottle neck and choke points in a base. Like in APOC. This you can do without any extra coding.

Then again, I am not 100% in understanding what this feature is for. Until I do, I reserved myself from making more input.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 16, 2019, 01:11:07 pm
For 8. FACILITIES: REQUIRED STAFF (SOLDIERS)
Like you can put turrets on craft. You can spawn soldiers in Maps of xcom facilities?
One idea of mine is to convert a facility into a Turrets Bottleneck thing. Multiple turrets in a facility, act as a bottle neck and choke points in a base. Like in APOC. This you can do without any extra coding.
Then again, I am not 100% in understanding what this feature is for. Until I do, I reserved myself from making more input.

No, it's about having staff for base facilities.
Same like you need scientists to do research... you would need extra people to operate a radar, clean up living quarters, organize storage rooms, etc.
Pure geoscape thing.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Precentor Apollyon on October 16, 2019, 01:17:43 pm
No, it's about having staff for base facilities.
Same like you need scientists to do research... you would need extra people to operate a radar, clean up living quarters, organize storage rooms, etc.
Pure geoscape thing.

Oh I see, this is not for battlescape in a base defense mission. My apologies for the misunderstanding.  Probably you might want to occupy them like you have pilot in crafts. This might boost the bonuses of certain facility and its capabilities..
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: krautbernd on October 16, 2019, 05:48:16 pm
It's not designed yet.
Feedback/suggestions welcome.
Would it be practical for reinforcements re-use existing spawn points or would these need to have separate zones/tiles? Solarius mentioned having missions/mission ideas in mind for this - are there any actual requests how/where the reinforcement should spawn? Just trying to get an overview of what is actually being proposed here.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 16, 2019, 06:05:45 pm
I have this from someone:

Code: [Select]
========= CURRENT DEPLOYMENT =========

  - type: STR_CROP_CIRCLES
    width: 40
    length: 40
    height: 4
    alert: STR_ALERT_CROP_CIRCLES
    alertBackground: BACK03.SCR
    briefing:
      palette: 2
      music: AS_2_INTRO
      showTarget: false
    music:
      - ZIZZ_STUDIO_SPOOKY_SCAPE
    markerName: STR_CROP_CIRCLES
    duration: [80, 104]
    despawnPenalty: 50
    turnLimit: 10
    chronoTrigger: 1
    terrains:
      - CULTA_CROP_CIRCLES
    data:
      - alienRank: 5
        lowQty: 1
        highQty: 3
        dQty: 0
        percentageOutsideUfo: 100
        itemSets:
          -
            []
          -
            []
          -
            []
          -
            - STR_AXE
          -
            - STR_PUMP_ACTION
            - STR_PUMP_ACTION_SHELLS
            - STR_PUMP_ACTION_SHELLS

Code: [Select]
========= PROPOSED DEPLOYMENT =========

  - type: STR_CROP_CIRCLES
    width: 40
    length: 40
    height: 4
    alert: STR_ALERT_CROP_CIRCLES
    alertBackground: BACK03.SCR
    briefing:
      palette: 2
      music: AS_2_INTRO
      showTarget: false
    music:
      - ZIZZ_STUDIO_SPOOKY_SCAPE
    markerName: STR_CROP_CIRCLES
    duration: [80, 104]
    despawnPenalty: 50
    terrains:
      - CULTA_CROP_CIRCLES
    data:
      - alienRank: 5
        lowQty: 1
        highQty: 3
        dQty: 0
        percentageOutsideUfo: 100
        itemSets:
          -
            []
          -
            []
          -
            []
          -
            - STR_AXE
          -
            - STR_PUMP_ACTION
            - STR_PUMP_ACTION_SHELLS
            - STR_PUMP_ACTION_SHELLS
    reinforcements:
      turn: 10 # when reinforcements arrive
      direction: [N, W, S, E] # they appear near any map border; newly spawned units have full TUs and can move right away
      - STR_MIB_SOLDIER # unit that appears; works like alienRank
        lowQty: 7
        highQty: 15
        dQty: 0
        itemSets:
          -
            - STR_SMG
            - STR_SMG_CLIP
            - STR_SMG_CLIP
            - STR_SMG_CLIP
          -
            - STR_SMG
            - STR_SMG_AA_CLIP
            - STR_SMG_AA_CLIP
            - STR_SMG_AA_CLIP
          -
            - STR_BLACKOPS_SMARTPISTOL
            - STR_PISTOL_AA_CLIP
            - STR_PISTOL_AA_CLIP
          -
            - STR_LASER_PISTOL_MIB
            - STR_LASER_PISTOL_MIB_CLIP
            - STR_LASER_PISTOL_MIB_CLIP
          -
            - STR_GAUSS_PISTOL
            - STR_GAUSS_PISTOL_CLIP
            - STR_GAUSS_PISTOL_CLIP
      - STR_MIB_NAVIGATOR
        lowQty: 3
        highQty: 4
        dQty: 0
        itemSets:
          (...)

Code: [Select]
========= VARIANTS =========
(omitting repeatable elements)


    reinforcements:
      turn: 2-17 # random (probably needs different format, but you get the idea)
      direction: [N, W] # they appear either at north or west border of the map; if not specified, any border (like in the previous example)
      - STR_MIB_SOLDIER
        lowQty: 7
        highQty: 15
        dQty: 0
        itemSets:
          (...)

    reinforcements:
      turnChance: 10 # 10% chance each turn
      repeats: 2 # if happened twice, no more checks; default 0 - is never disabled
      direction: random # appear randomly on the battlefield, like paratroopers or teleporters
      - STR_MIB_SOLDIER
        lowQty: 7
        highQty: 15
        dQty: 0
        itemSets:
          (...)

    reinforcements:
      turn: 0 # is present on the map since beginning (a way to override alienRace limitations)
      direction: random
      - STR_MIB_SOLDIER
        lowQty: 7
        highQty: 15
        dQty: 0
        itemSets:
          (...)
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: krautbernd on October 16, 2019, 06:28:29 pm
Interesting, thanks.

Wouldn't this run the risk of having units spawn in unreachable/blocked locations, given the random nature of map generation? Would it be possible (or rather practical) to define spawn points manually, akin to how base storage tiles or spawned items (in terrains) are defined?
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 16, 2019, 06:35:36 pm
I don't know, I didn't request this feature. I don't know how they want to use it.

Whoever wants it needs to give me enough information (and examples) so that I do what they want... or be potentially disappointed by my interpretation.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Yankes on October 16, 2019, 09:10:32 pm
This one is for Yankes, I can't comment much.
Yes, different overkill animations should be possible as you can change any frame of unit graphic.
Probably only problem is overwriting "burn" effect that fade to back unit sprite.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Solarius Scorch on October 17, 2019, 08:07:59 pm
Thanks for the response, Meridian. I have cleaned the list, here is the revised version:

1. TERRAIN DESTRUCTION BY MELEE
Priority: high
Justification: Lack of this feature has been a pain since melee weapons were added, and nothing has changed here. Half-assed solutions like 1-tile "ranged" weapons are not really satisfactory, and impossibility of using a machete to damage a bush is frustrating.

2. ALTERNATE ANIMATION FOR OVERKILL
Priority: medium
Justification: A purely aesthetic thing, but adding it would really enhance the experience. Ludicrous Gibs are a trope for a reason, and some weapons just aren't the same without it. Plus it seems (to a layman like me) to be relatively easy to add.

3. RESEARCH: FALSE FOR UFOPAEDIA ARTICLES
Priority: low
Justification: Lack of this option causes confusion with some Piratez players and there's no other way of clearing it up easily (without sacrificing some gameplay).
Clarifications: It's an inversion of "requires". With this, the only article displays when you do not have a given research. It would have to be compatible with requires. For example:
* You find a Plasma Pistol. You can immediately research it regardless of any research prerequisites. It will display an article saying "we think it's an alien weapon, blah blah"
* Later you collect enough knowledge to examine the item in full, which gives you full info, and the old article disappears.
So essentially there are two different articles, which never appear at the same time.
One problem I'm not sure how to approach is writing such rulesets for items. Continuing the plasma pistol example, the "early" research/article could not be STR_PLASMA_PISTOL, because it would conflict with the later article, which would also need to be STR_PLASMA_PISTOL, else the article wouldn't work properly. But it can't be some other string, because then the needItem command wouldn't work. I don't have a good solution at the moment.

4. FACILITIES: REQUIRED STAFF (SOLDIERS)
Priority: low
Justification: I think we have all accepted that this wouldn't happen anytime soon. Anyway, it's not my request and I have never really been interested in it personally, so it's hard for me to evaluate its value.

5. (not on the list but requested elsewhere) MID-BATTLE REINFORCEMENTS FOR THE AI
Priority: very high
Justification: I literally have several missions already designed (and some of it even made!) around this concept. Definitely a must have for almost any tactical game which is supposed to cover various scenarios, and OXCE+ as a whole moves X-Com in that area.

6. SUICIDE BOMBERS (new)
Priority: medium
Justification: Enemy units running towards the player and then blowing up is a common thing in games, and it keeps coming up in the OXC community. I consider it useful.





A few comments/clarifications:

(IMO) not worth the effort.
It is a small feature gameplay-wise, but a very large feature (IMO) technically.

I agree. But at this point I consider it a part of the general movement option pack, discussed with Otto. Not the most important part.

I removed this request, because it would be better to keep it separately, in the "special moves" category.

UFO crash/landing sites are limited to one UFO and one xcom craft.

Visually, you can create a craft that looks like two or more craft... see 40k.
Visually, you can create a UFO, which looks like multiple UFOs...
But in the background, there will always be just one of each.

Well, what I really intended is to have multiple buildings per map, spawned with addUFO. But nowadays we can use the Otto's advanced terrain generation instead, with acceptable compromises.

What is this?

I've added more details to the request, based on our recent Discord conversation.

Then don't put it on your list? :)

I have a soft heart :)

Anyway, Soldier Transformations now support transforming soldiers into items... so you can make a project that transforms your senior psi operative(s) into resource(s) required to build some advanced Psi facility for example... as requested by Nord.

The initial request from Dioxine was a bit different: soldiers wouldn't be used for construction, but for operation. For example you need to assign someone to a radar (same as assigning scientists to research), else it won't function.
If this is silly, I'll remove it.

I have this from someone:

Not sure if you're trying to protect my privacy, in which case sorry for ruining it... But if you really don't know, then I admit it's mine. ;)

Interesting, thanks.

Wouldn't this run the risk of having units spawn in unreachable/blocked locations, given the random nature of map generation? Would it be possible (or rather practical) to define spawn points manually, akin to how base storage tiles or spawned items (in terrains) are defined?

If you screw up, then it's possible. It's a modder's job to ensure this doesn't happen. On most maps it shouldn't be a problem, as they're open.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: SuperCaffeineDude on October 17, 2019, 10:25:37 pm
Cool so is that reinforcements supported now? If so I look forward to seeing what people do with that!

I would suggest it's probably a feature highly desirable for vanilla base assaults (enclosed map), for that I would suggest...

direction: DropDownPoints // code searches for middle of base facilities marked as (EntryPoint == true) and uses a 5x5 square (the size of the the vanilla elevator) to place units (could drop units from the highest point to simulate jumping down)

SpawnInSprites [z,y,z] // instead of dropping them from a literal height just play an animation of them landing or teleporting, adds polish. In the case of teleporting, it could  also just be an overlay effect I guess.

(https://media1.giphy.com/media/k3EJhAKrH6kW4/giphy.gif)
(https://media2.giphy.com/media/3o7TKLzBYFrRWcXk9q/giphy.gif)

I also wonder if, using the "direction: random" placement, one could even simulate an "aerial/orbital bombardment" (probably better achieved if you could teleport items, like primed grenades), it would probably feel a little cruel in most cases, but I imagine someone like Solarius could use it for timed missions.

Sub-Question: Would the script also be able to spawn in Civilian reinforcements (i.e. UN Troop support, Police Responders).

...

Love to reiterate the desire for suicide units, it might sound a little tasteless but mechanically they present an interesting challenge, thus it is such a troupe.

...

Anyway great, excited to see where this goes!
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: krautbernd on October 17, 2019, 11:58:41 pm
Cool so is that reinforcements supported now? If so I look forward to seeing what people do with that![...]
I think it's supported as in 'considered' and not as in 'implemented' though.

The problem I see with the facillities option is that is specific for base assaults, not universal. If you go that route you need different defintions for non base assault situations. I would prefer an universal approach that can be adapted for various mission types/map layouts. Same probably goes for SpawnInSprites - to take advantage of that option you actually need to design your map around it, and you need a way to include that animation (how/where would it be defined? Would it be unit specific? etc.). I think the original request was simply to allow additional unit spawns after the first/zeroth round.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: SuperCaffeineDude on October 18, 2019, 02:32:08 am
I think it's supported as in 'considered' and not as in 'implemented' though.

The problem I see with the facillities option is that is specific for base assaults, not universal. If you go that route you need different defintions for non base assault situations. I would prefer an universal approach that can be adapted for various mission types/map layouts. Same probably goes for SpawnInSprites - to take advantage of that option you actually need to design your map around it, and you need a way to include that animation (how/where would it be defined? Would it be unit specific? etc.). I think the original request was simply to allow additional unit spawns after the first/zeroth round.

O'no, shame :P, still it's interesting.
For the animations I'd imagine you could do either a teleport overlay (like the alien elevator particle effect (or be more inventive idk)), or/and set the animation to null by default (use forward facing sprite), then allow the modder to declare the coordinates on the unit's spritemap if they have made those alterations to said spritemap. (maybe that's not possible and I'm talking nonsense though)

I mean I guess one other thing you could do is have an invisible unit like "muton-teletrooper" "die" and spawn in the unit you want (i.e a "muton") with the "death-animation" acting as that transition.

Regardless I think it's great however (if) it comes  :D
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Precentor Apollyon on October 18, 2019, 05:10:54 am

6. SUICIDE BOMBERS (new)
Priority: medium
Justification: Enemy units running towards the player and then blowing up is a common thing in games, and it keeps coming up in the OXC community. I consider it useful.


Suggestion of how this will work in benefit with existing available mechanic.

What is propose below a simplified version of the proposal. Part A has been tested to work in my mod. However, melee attacking unit did not die.  Has to be killed by external parties.

In the item ruleset

Part A

Item melee weapon.
damageType: 7
power: 1
costMelee
   health: -350 (Deduct health from suicide attacking unit)

Some future coding is needed to handle the unit health (wielding the melee weapon) deducted to negative value to allow it to die instantly in battlescape. Current coding does not handle dying from negative health value from battlescape using costMelee. Health would not go below 1 as confirm by Meridian

Part B

Item melee weapon.
battleType: 12
power: 350 (Positive or negative value depending how the future coding will remove health from suicide unit.)

battleType 12 is self-melee, a modification from Battletype 3. It might involve more coding but this has added benefit of allowing the future expansion of self inflicting weapons like syringe type weapon to boost a soldier stats.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: krautbernd on October 18, 2019, 11:54:27 am
Suggestion of how this will work in benefit with existing available mechanic.

Unit in unit ruleset must have isLeeroyJenkins in its list.

In the item ruleset

Item melee weapon.
damageType: 7
power: 1
costMelee
   health:  -350

Some code to handle the unit wielding the melee weapon dying instantly in battlescape.

Have you actually tried this? Units can't kill themselves this way, nor can they expend more resources than they have (which is kind of obvious, as otherwise having costs wouldn't make much sense). Even it was possible you'd still have to find a way to actually deal radial damage with melee attacks (since afaik melee weapons override any radius settings and deal damage to units only).

Item melee weapon.
battleType: 12
power: -350

battleType 12 is self-melee, a modification from Battletype 3. It might involve more coding but this has added benefit of allowing the future expansion of self inflicting weapons like syringe type weapon to boost a soldier stats.

What is the negative power value supposed to do? Can you elaborate how this is supposed to deal damage to the unit itself AND the the unit that is being attacked, as well as those around it?

EDIT:
I suppose damage could be dealt via self-destruction, but this comes with other drawbacks (or 'features', depending on how you look at it), such as possibly causing chain reactions.

Would it be possible to make isLeeroyJenkins work with ranged weapons?
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 18, 2019, 12:22:16 pm
Won't work reliably (if at all)...

Yes, this would not work.
Cost of using an item cannot bring health below 1, cannot bring stun over current hp and cannot bring other resources below 0.
It would need to be done differently.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Precentor Apollyon on October 18, 2019, 01:10:28 pm
Hi Meridian, if you choose the path of using a new battletype for this self melee/suicide feature.

Question, I believe the suicide unit has to be “tricked” into thinking like it is using a normal melee weapon. However, when it is attacking a player’s soldier, if it’s weapon does a melee attack on itself, it could bring its health down below zero and dies?

Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 18, 2019, 01:20:13 pm
Question, I believe the suicide unit has to be “tricked” into thinking like it is using a normal melee weapon. However, when it is attacking a player’s soldier, if it’s weapon does a melee attack on itself, it could bring its health down below zero and dies?

Melee weapons don't do area-of-effect damage, you can't hurt yourself with a melee weapon.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: krautbernd on October 18, 2019, 01:26:53 pm
Hi Meridian, if you choose the path of using a new battletype for this self melee/suicide feature.
You don't need a new battletype if you can get a unit into melee range with a ranged weapon, hence my question of using 'isLeeroyJenkins' behaviour with ranged weapons. Either by introducing a new variable that replicates isLeeroyJenkins but with all weapon types or by introducing a flag which enables an item to be considered a melee weapon for 'isLeeroyJenkins'.

Could this be done / would it be practical?
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Precentor Apollyon on October 18, 2019, 01:31:16 pm
Melee weapons don't do area-of-effect damage, you can't hurt yourself with a melee weapon.

Understood, thanks for confirming, I trust you above all when it comes to this kind of information. Then by logic, you will probably choose the most efficient way to code this in making the feature to work.

If you choose the path of giving melee weapon able to do area-of-effect-damage (if possible). Would this also meet Solarius request having Melee weapon able to do terrain damage?  If you can confirm with yes or no?

Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: krautbernd on October 18, 2019, 01:49:54 pm
If you choose the path of giving melee weapon able to do area-of-effect-damage (if possible). Would this also meet Solarius request having Melee weapon able to do terrain damage?
No, since area of effect damage isn't the underlaying problem with that. It's that melee weapons only work on units. You can't 'target' melee attacks the way you can with other weapons. Area off effect damage doesn't change that.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 18, 2019, 02:22:21 pm
If you choose the path of giving melee weapon able to do area-of-effect-damage (if possible). Would this also meet Solarius request having Melee weapon able to do terrain damage?  If you can confirm with yes or no?

This question cannot be answered with yes or no.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Precentor Apollyon on October 18, 2019, 02:30:50 pm
This question cannot be answered with yes or no.

Okay, thanks for the honest and candid reply. If you can give me a short and detail answer, that will be much appreciated. Lastly, of the two path I laid down above, which would you go to code it. If you approve of this feature.

This shall be my last question on this topic.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 18, 2019, 03:24:52 pm
Okay, thanks for the honest and candid reply. If you can give me a short and detail answer, that will be much appreciated.

1. costMelee and all similar attributes will remain unchanged, they work 100% as intended... any change would be a bug
2. I am not planning to make melee do AOE damage
3. I also don't see any reason for battleType=12, it's not the weapon that explodes, it's the unit that explodes/self-destructs
4. Self-destruct can be a simple false/true flag on a unit... the actual self-destruct would be a new code, not reusing any existing mechanic... it would also be completely independent from leeroyJenkins and everything else mentioned above, I don't see any reason to "bastardize" (sorry for expression) well-defined existing features
5. The parameters of the self-destruct explosion (type, power, etc.) would be defined either via a dummy item linked to the unit; or by a few new attributes on the unit itself

All new attributes are subject to change during actual implementation, depending on compatibility with other features and potential extension of cyberdisc/bio-drone self-destruct triggers, power and type.

6. terrain destruction by melee is completely offtopic for self-destructing units... and will be handled completely separately... not going to describe it here

Lastly, of the two path I laid down above, which would you go to code it. If you approve of this feature.

None. They are both bad (in context of OpenXcom).
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Precentor Apollyon on October 18, 2019, 03:42:26 pm
Thank you Meridian, for this detail and through reply. It is stunting to me that neither of my suggested path would work. However, I am also humbled by the mastery and design which you have in mind to solve this. This also allow me to appreciate too, if the request may seem small but the strategy to pull it off is a lot more.

Again, thank you for this.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: krautbernd on October 18, 2019, 04:10:45 pm
All new attributes are subject to change during actual implementation, depending on compatibility with other features and potential extension of cyberdisc/bio-drone self-destruct triggers, power and type.
Might this include the possibility of 'disarming' units that are set to self-destruct, in case stunned units wake up again?
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 18, 2019, 04:32:57 pm
Might this include the possibility of 'disarming' units that are set to self-destruct, in case stunned units wake up again?

Disarm which units?

(The self-destructed ones will be insta-killed and won't be able to rise from the dead.)
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: krautbernd on October 18, 2019, 04:40:42 pm
Disarm which units?

(The self-destructed ones will be insta-killed and won't be able to rise from the dead.)
Stunnning units that are set to self-destruct on death attack. Would it be possible to remove/disable the self-destruct flag if the unit is successfully stunned and falls unconscious? Example would be a suicide bomber unit that is (supposed) to wear an explosive vest. Would it be possible to either retrieve the 'vest' (if the function is bound to an item that can be dropped) or disable the self-destruct alltogether?
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 18, 2019, 04:50:36 pm
Stunnning units that are set to self-destruct on death. Would it be possible to remove/disable the self-destruct flag if the unit is successfully stunned and falls unconscious? Example would be a suicide bomber unit that is (supposed) to wear an explosive vest. Would it be possible to either retrieve the 'vest' (if the function is bound to an item that can be dropped) or disable the self-destruct alltogether?

I don't understand, please don't mix "self-destruct on death" (existing feature) with "self-destruct on attack" (new feature).

Units that self-destruct on death (cyberdisc):
- are disarmed when stunned or killed... just like every other unit in the game
- don't have to self-destruct... just like vanilla cyberdiscs or bio-drones for example... when killed by stun, melee, HE, etc.

Units that self-destruct on attack (suicide bomber):
- are disarmed when stunned or killed... just like every other unit in the game
- don't self-destruct if you kill or stun them... they only self-destruct if they are the attacker
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: krautbernd on October 18, 2019, 05:03:44 pm
Just noticed I actually wrote self-destruct on death. I meant self-destruct on attack. Sorry for the mix-up.

My question concerns what happens to those units when they wake up. I've never encountered a cyberdisc getting back up after being stunned, but supposedly they would still self-destruct if killed (since the existing self-destruct mechanic is bound to the corpse afaik).

Normal units drop their weapons (if they aren't part of their armor definitions) if they fall unconscious, which includes grenades etc. - would a suicide bomber that is stunned and wakes up still be able to explode or would it be possible to set item(s) that govern the "self-destruct on attack" ability (if the ability is implemented this way) to be droppable?
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: Meridian on October 18, 2019, 05:46:42 pm
My question concerns what happens to those units when they wake up. I've never encountered a cyberdisc getting back up after being stunned, but supposedly they would still self-destruct if killed (since the existing self-destruct mechanic is bound to the corpse afaik).

2x2 units (cyberdisc) cannot wake up, ever.
1x1 units (bio-drone) can wake up, same way as normal units. If you stunned or killed a bio-drone that woke up, it would work exactly the same as if you were doing it to him for the first time. Or in other words, the fact it was stunned before has no impact on anything.

Normal units drop their weapons (if they aren't part of their armor definitions) if they fall unconscious, which includes grenades etc. - would a suicide bomber that is stunned and wakes up still be able to explode or would it be possible to set item(s) that govern the "self-destruct on attack" ability (if the ability is implemented this way) to be droppable?

I don't plan to implement any items (droppable or fixed) to perform unit self-destruct.
The unit itself will explode, not any item it is carrying.
Title: Re: [WIP] [Suggestion] Solar's wishlist
Post by: krautbernd on October 18, 2019, 06:14:35 pm
2x2 units (cyberdisc) cannot wake up, ever.
1x1 units (bio-drone) can wake up, same way as normal units. If you stunned or killed a bio-drone that woke up, it would work exactly the same as if you were doing it to him for the first time. Or in other words, the fact it was stunned before has no impact on anything.

I don't plan to implement any items (droppable or fixed) to perform unit self-destruct.
The unit itself will explode, not any item it is carrying.
I think I misunderstood the "dummy-item" part you mentioned. I guess my question then would be if the self-destruct flag can be dynamic, with an option to set it to false if the unit falls unconscious.