OpenXcom Forum
OpenXcom => Open Feedback => Topic started by: Bobit on May 06, 2019, 07:20:38 am
-
1) In Xenonauts and to a lesser degree FiraxisCOM you ignore the terrain that's directly adjacent to you. This lets you take cover behind a barrel without it negatively impacting your aim. Does original XCOM have this feature, or can it be modded in? It might seem minor but it's extremely important to the feel and cover-based combat of those games (though not necessarily this one).
2) Similarly I hear that the tiles are physically modeled in map files? How exactly does that affect gameplay?
3) In Xenonauts and Apocalypse there are gasses that deal damage (and other stuff) instead of just obstructing vision. Does this exist in OpenXCOM?
4) I'm not a huge fan of the CQB / melee dodge mechanic enabled in a lot of mods. You can just take a single step back and it doesn't count, which you should very often do because 2-space accuracy is very high and they have no dodge chance. But the AI won't, which is extremely awkward. It feels like it could do better, maybe apply in a slightly larger range. Would love to have someone CMV.
5) What is a "master" mod? What kind of files would you need to basically have a 1-hour campaign with a single level? That seems like it would be a useful starting point for me making a mod. The ruleset reference is very helpful, but I basically don't understand how to delete everything and start from scratch like most mods seem to do.
6) Are there any wizard modes or similarly helpful debug tools/mods?
7) Free reaction fire seems like a fun idea. Basically wearing light armor would give you 30% TUs refund on end of your turn. This way you can offhand a pistol to protect yourself. Is it possible, and would it be fun?
8 ) Got any mod reviews? What are the shortest mods? I like short games.
-
Welcome to the forum, Bobit!
Ad. 1) I don't think there is any special mechanics, but at 1 tile you are extremely unlikely to get a deviation big enough to hit your cover.
Ad. 2) It affects the gameplay by, well, the battlescape being in full 3D... So in all sorts of ways.
Ad. 3) Smoke weapons can cause extra effects on explosion, but the residual smoke will be normal. We can't have multiple smoke types.
Ad. 4) I was the one to suggest this feature. I realize it's not perfect, and some people don't like it because of this, but I will defend it to the death. It adds tactical depth and makes close combat look a bit less silly. True, the AI doesn't use it that well, but it is pretty simplistic in general, not just here. Also, "stepping back one tile" very often gives you a fistful of buckshot to the back. :)
Ad. 5) I'm not sure what you mean at all. Do you want a single level game, play-until-you-die style? If yes, I can help with it. But it's not related to a mod being a master (it's generally not important for 99% of modders whether a mod is a master).
Ad.6) Nothing widely known, but I remember some attempts. X-Com 1 is commonly regarded to be too easy to warrant this, and TFTD isn't that popular. But there is the debug mode for auto-killing enemies, seeing the whole map, etc.
Ad. 7) No, that would completely ruin the mechanics, which while simplistic is very tight and quite ingenious. Changing something this basic would probably require redesigning everything TU-related from scratch, and good luck beating Gollop here (though who knows).
Ad. 8) I am not aware of any mods making the game even shorter than vanilla. Maybe Survivors, but I haven't played it yet.
I hope it helps!
-
1) No, cover is cover. You can't shoot through cover in (open)xcom. If you want to shoot, you need to move out of cover (or destroy the cover).
2) It means that cover is cover, not hot air :)
4) IMHO, there's just about everything wrong with CQB. The feature is irredeemable.
Melee dodge is better (than CQB), but also doesn't fit into core xcom mechanics very well.
7) It's probably possible to script that. If not, it would be very easy to implement.
8 ) All mods are longer than vanilla.
-
1-2) So I assume if you are in knee-high cover it won't reduce your chance to hit but will reduce your chance to be hit?
4) Fair points.
5-6) Basically I just want to easily spawn custom enemies/missions for testing purposes. I'm not entirely sure what the master tag does. I know that it prevents you from enabling vanilla mods with it. Does it do something else?
8 ) I am a traditional roguelike player. Those games can be 2-5 hours, yet I replay them for hundreds. I don't understand why every game dev in this genre thinks longer = more hardcore/replayable. Mostly it just seems to mean you spend less time on the fun geoscape gimmicks.
-
1-2) So I assume if you are in knee-high cover it won't reduce your chance to hit but will reduce your chance to be hit?
Yes. A little.
5-6) Basically I just want to easily spawn custom enemies/missions for testing purposes.
That's what "New Battle" button is for... it starts a skirmish mission based on selected parameters (enemy, mission, difficulty, terrain, etc.).
-
4) IMHO, there's just about everything wrong with CQB. The feature is irredeemable.
Melee dodge is better (than CQB), but also doesn't fit into core xcom mechanics very well.
It is a concept taken straight from turn-based tactical games like Necromunda. It was one of the things that made these games great. So it's a classical, timeless mechanical concept - you might like it or not like it, it doesn't change anything.
-
Ok, ty!
Gotta say tho I'm not a huge fan of these realistic bullet physics if they can't make partial cover viable. In most FPS partial cover is a huge deal because you can peek and lean and generally manipulate it so that it blocks your opponent but not you, as well as pop out from multiple sides to catch them off guard. Here it looks like you can't manipulate it more than full cover, so there's not much reason to use it. In Xenonauts this is not the case and partial cover is huge, especially for ufo breaches.
-
It is a concept taken straight from turn-based tactical games like Necromunda. It was one of the things that made these games great. So it's a classical, timeless mechanical concept - you might like it or not like it, it doesn't change anything.
Necromunda? Never heard of.
None of the turn-based games I played have this mechanic... hardly timeless.
And even if they had, it doesn't change anything on the fact it doesn't belong into xcom.
You may not like that, but it doesn't change anything :)
-
Necromunda? Never heard of.
Sorry, that only makes you uneducated in the genre.
-
Sorry, that only makes you uneducated in the genre.
That was so offtopic, it doesn't even pass as trolling.
Anyway, I have plans to improve CQB to at least a "non-bullshit level" in 2019. Who knows, maybe something can be done with it.
-
It's not perfect, kind of clunky, but it adds something and takes almost nothing away. I actually didn't mean to say I don't like it. I do, it just could be better... probably...
-
That was so offtopic, it doesn't even pass as trolling.
I probably shouldn't say anything... But Necromunda is literally the most famous and popular tactical squad-based game in the world. Nobody has to be knowledgeable about that, it's a very niche hobby after all, but don't claim to know anything about tabletop tactical games if you haven't even heard of this one. And no, it's not off-topic, this is very relevant to the discussion (which is the only reason I am writing this, not to reprimand you for not being nerdy enough or anything like that).
We don't have to, and we shouldn't copy Necromunda, it's a different game, but it is the golden standard and it is extremely well tested, so it is justified to use it for comparison as Dioxine did.
Anyway, I have plans to improve CQB to at least a "non-bullshit level" in 2019. Who knows, maybe something can be done with it.
I assume you mean making the rolls respect facings (penalties for fighting an enemy behind you) and such. Yes, I fully agree - this would be quite necessary, as it's a bit unpolished at the moment. I would be happy to discuss it elsewhere, if you're looking for feedback.
-
I probably shouldn't say anything... But Necromunda is literally the most famous and popular tactical squad-based game in the world. Nobody has to be knowledgeable about that, it's a very niche hobby after all, but don't claim to know anything about tabletop tactical games if you haven't even heard of this one. And no, it's not off-topic, this is very relevant to the discussion (which is the only reason I am writing this, not to reprimand you for not being nerdy enough or anything like that).
We don't have to, and we shouldn't copy Necromunda, it's a different game, but it is the golden standard and it is extremely well tested, so it is justified to use it for comparison as Dioxine did.
So, Necromunda is not even a computer game? How more offtopic does it need to be? How can it possibly be used for comparison?
PS: I don't claim to know anything about tabletop games.
PS2: Just out of pure curiosity, can you describe how the TUs work in Necromunda and how does CQB work there (in relation to TUs)?
I assume you mean making the rolls respect facings (penalties for fighting an enemy behind you) and such. Yes, I fully agree - this would be quite necessary, as it's a bit unpolished at the moment. I would be happy to discuss it elsewhere, if you're looking for feedback.
I am sorting the objective flaws from the subjective flaws at the moment.
When I'm ready, I will ask for feedback, as always.
-
I'll leave the explanation to Dioxine, don't want to argue on his behalf, since I'm not sure what exactly he meant.
But I'm quite excited about the development of this feature... as you probably guessed. ;)
-
Sorry, that only makes you uneducated in the genre.
Dioxine, it's likely that it wasn't your intention, but calling someone 'uneducated' in English is usually considered rude and arrogant since you're saying the person is stupid and ignorant.
And I share the same opinion as Meridian regarding CQB: none of the turn-based games I play has this mechanic... hardly timeless, and definitely not a requirement to make such games great. You may disagree with both of us, but that doesn't make your opinion more educated than ours.
-
@Hobbes: Turns out I was talking about computer games and he was talking about tabletop games. So technically he's right in his context, I know nothing about tabletop games.
But back to topic.
I tried googling Necromunda rules and mechanics, but unfortunately I didn't find anything about actively disrupting buckshot in the face.
1. Necromunda intro video doesn't mention anything like that: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_YtB0tGKUyI
2. Necromunda summary sheet also doesn't mention anything: https://necromunda.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/5/2018/03/Necro_RefRoster_ENG.pdf
There's an 8-step close combat sequence described there, without any mention of enemy able to disrupt your close range shotguns.
3. Necromunda rulebook: http://ascfi1.asoc.fi.upm.es/wikirol/images/9/9b/Necromunda_Underhive_2017_rules_en.pdf
On page 24, I was able to find 2 mechanics that maybe were what he meant, however none of them is even close to the current OXCE mechanic.
a/ "Interference" = "When a fighter makes close combat attacks, they suffer interference from each other enemy fighter who is a) Engaged with the attacker, and b) not Engaged with any other fighters in the attacker's gang.Each interference subtracts 1 from the result of the attacker's hit roll."
This directly corresponds to OXCE melee dodge, not CQB.
(Edit: OXCE melee dodge is actually stronger, since it's always-on, but let's say we close one eye there)
b/ "Parry" = "After an enemy makes close combat attacks against a fighter armed with a Parry weapon, the fighter can force the attacking player to re-roll one successful hit. If the fighter is armed with two Parry weapons, they can force the attacking player to re-roll two successful hits instead."
This is the closest I could find to CQB, but still miles away from current OXCE implementation:
a/ only applies to melee weapons, pistols and unarmed combat; not to shotguns for example as in OXCE
b/ the enemy must have a specific weapon, which he can use to counterattack (e.g. sword on sword), and after the counter attack the attacking player gets ANOTHER roll... so in most cases he will hit again... whereas in OXCE, it's a guaranteed miss
c/ the amount of counterattacks is limited to max. 2, but it must be a highly specialized unit, if I understand correctly, most of the time it will be 0 counterattacks, sometimes 1... unlike in OXCE, where every fatman has unlimited OP counterattacks
So, bottomline... I didn't find anything even remotely similar to OXCE CQB. Shotguns from 1-tile distance work the same way as shotguns from 5-tile distance. Necromunda-style Parry mechanic seems very balanced to me and I would immediately take it instead of OXCE CQB.
-
I could be wrong, but I think Necromunda was more of an example of approach rather than a particular solution.
From my personal perspective, CQB is something like this:
(Generic RPG session)
Player: I continue down the corridor and turn around the corner, shotgun ready.
GM: As you turn, you almost walk into a commando/stormtrooper/spetsnaz. Roll for initiative.
Player: ...17.
GM: Lucky you, he has 16. What are you going to do?
Player: I shoot him!
GM: okay, but he's like 4 feet away, and he's a skilled soldier. He reacts immediately to knock your shotgun aside. Roll for melee.
That's a bit off-topic, just thought I'd present why I advocate for the CQB to be in the game, irrelevant of the exact mechanics. I don't want the NPC from the example above to automatically get shot, since it's not fun and also not even that realistic, based on what I know about close combat (assuming trained combatants). Games can't and often shouldn't be realistic, but this is also a matter of what works on the player experience level. And no CQC would be like no Z levels - acceptable, but impoverishing.
-
@Hobbes: Turns out I was talking about computer games and he was talking about tabletop games. So technically he's right in his context, I know nothing about tabletop games.
I've played a few old-school tabletop games that predate Necromunda by 10 or 20 years, like Battletech or DnD, so claiming that a game released in 1995 defined a specific mechanic, and thus you're ignorant if you don't know the game, it simply makes me laugh at the absurdity of the statement.
Plus, regarding game design, the distinction between tabletop and computer games is zero regarding the core mechanics that you can implement in either. It's merely a matter of choices. CBQ is just another mechanic like Hunter-Killers, which are basically a sequence of specific steps activated by specific circumstances - on its own it doesn't make a game better or more fun, and adding it can actually have quite the opposite effect.
And since you're the guy coding and implementing it, you can bet you know a lot more about game mechanics than a regular player.
-
Miniature wargames are definitely a sister genre. But then again so are classic roguelikes, GMT/block wargames, and Battle Brothers. Honestly the only thing truly like XCOM is games that tried to remake it.
There's a bunch of stuff you could do to improve CQB, such as:
- Increase range in which it activates to 2
- Make it take slightly more TU to move near enemies so they can't just move away (wrestling)
- Add a new rule for each alien: "avoidsCQB" default false. If enabled will attempt to move out of CQB before firing.
- Same as above but make the AI always pick the higher damage option. Kinda cheaty though, it shouldn't know whether it will win CQB.
- Add another option which just reduces point-blank range as in FiraxisXCOM.
- Free melee reactions which can stun instead? Nobody likes this idea though
- Make the attack's accuracy based on the CQB stat. After all, are you really going to miss with a shotgun that's up against their head? Not unless they wrestle it out.