Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - Daemonjax

Pages: [1]
1
Open Feedback / Re: Incendiaries
« on: October 10, 2015, 12:39:53 am »
I'm finding incendiary weapons are less useful in OpenXcom than the OG due to side-effects of incendiary-related bugfixes, even when played straight without abuse.

For example, the funky fire bug:  When hitting a unit with more fire while it's already standing in fire, damage per hit was increased (effectively doubled? Not sure).  This also increased the value of incendiary rockets when used in combination with auto-cannons and heavy cannons (first hit a building or area with the incendiary rocket to cover the area, then fire autocannon and cannon at it to add more fuel to the fire).  It was an interesting combo which doesn't work well-enough anymore.

The other is when zombies killed by fire wouldn't spawn a chrysalid.  That alone was worth bringing a couple autocannons with me way past their normal shelf-life, which was more interesting than not bringing them.

Since these mainly de-value autocannon incendiary rounds (and by extension the autocannon itself to some extent), I personally mod them to a weigh 2 pounds less than explosive rounds (so 3 instead of 5) -- otherwise I'd simply never bring incendiary rounds (I play with the 80 item limit on skyrangers turned on).  I also reduce the weight of incendiary rockets and heavy cannon rounds by the same amount, but I tend not to use them much anymore regardless.

I'm considering doubling the armor damage multiplier for all aliens vs fire. 

Smoke's stun damage also becomes kinda meaningless without the funky fire bug (for both xcom troops and aliens -- my unarmored troops can stay in smoke the whole battle, every battle), so I think that should be doubled (or maybe tripled or higher, but it would be hard to simulate this by just increasing this by a flat amount) as well -- I just don't know how.

The bugs were worth removing, despite the cost.  It's just that I think we lost some of the offensive effectiveness of smoke and fire tactics along the way, and I'd like to get them back because they were fun.  I'd like to have the effects of the funky fire bug back, if they can be made to apply logically rather than affecting the whole map, because when played straight without abuse it made incendiary weapons a viable alternative to other weapons in a way that was different than simply increasing the damage (albeit highly situational, which is fine).  I liked how fire was the only good way to kill a zombie, too, and I miss having to move my own units out of smoked areas or risk falling unconscious.

2
I thought otherwise, but I'll take your word for it.  I'll just stop using cannons, then.

3
Open Feedback / Re: Freqently getting early base defense missions
« on: October 09, 2015, 03:19:03 am »
Bottom line is, there are certain locations on the Geoscape's regions that increase the chance of UFOs detecting XCom bases since they are very close to the possible waypoints used by the UFOs.

I guess North America is screwed, then, since that's where I always put my initial base... right where Area 51 is.  :D

4
In the vanilla OG, reload time had a 50% spread, with the average time being significantly faster than the values found in craftweapons.rul

The values in craftweapons.rul are the worst case times.  The average times in vanilla OG were 75% of these values.

UFO craft seem to be breaking off before I can shoot them down more often than I remember, which led me to investigate the issue, so I'm just wondering how OpenXCom handles this aspect.  I kinda like it the way it is, because being unlucky and not shooting a UFO down early enough for the alloys forces me to change my initial early-game strategy somewhat, which is probably a good thing (for me, the player, not the xcom soldiers), but it devalues the standard cannon because it's unable to fulfill its purpose.  Still curious.

5
Open Feedback / Re: Freqently getting early base defense missions
« on: October 08, 2015, 10:09:04 am »
Got it.

Yeah, I can recover. 

A base defense on the 11th is kinda rough... tight on storage space and soldiers (I had 6).  The tanks saved me. 

At the end, it was a lot of fun running a guy back to the supply room to grab the last two heavy missiles.

It came down to the last missile and a snapshot launch, taking out the last cyberdisk.  It would have been game over if he missed.

6
Open Feedback / Freqently getting early base defense missions
« on: October 08, 2015, 03:45:28 am »
Verified aggressive retaliation is disabled.

In several of my last playthroughs, I've gotten base defense missions the first month.  I thought it was a little odd because I wasn't playing on superhuman, but I rolled with the punches thinking I was just really unlucky (Janurary 17th).  I was successful (no casualties, except 1 tank) and went on to beat the game, so whatevs.

I just started a new playthrough (Genius, Ironman), and I got a base defense mission (sectoids) on January 11th -- the earliest one yet. 

I was victorious, but lost 2 tanks and 3 high reaction soldiers.  They died for the cause, but they will be missed.  I got a blaster launcher (and 3 bombs) out of it, so I'm thinking they screwed themselves.


I don't remember getting so many base defense missions in the first month in vanilla, especially when not playing on superhuman.  I only saw and shot down 1 UFO so far.  Is that enough for them to send a retaliation mission?  How many UFOs shot down are required before they have a chance to send a retaliation mission?  Is something screwy going on? 

I'm using August 11th nightly build, custom build for the stat tracking soldier diaries mod.

Was aggressive retaliation broken in that build (it's turned on even when the menu says otherwise)?  Because that's the only thing that makes sense to me.

7
More Forks / Re: [STAT TRACKING] Soldier Diaries 1.0
« on: October 07, 2015, 09:04:58 pm »
Fair enough, I guess.

It's just that the number of mods requiring custom builds (making them incompatible with each other) continues to grow.

I'd prefer to not have to choose. ;)  But it is what it is, and I'm grateful that these mods exist at all.

8
More Forks / Re: [STAT TRACKING] Soldier Diaries 1.0
« on: October 04, 2015, 08:41:28 pm »
This is a cool mod, but wouldn't it be best if the exe changes were merged into the nightly builds via pull requests?

9
Open Feedback / Re: Donations to the devs
« on: April 13, 2014, 09:00:32 pm »
How about forum supporter tags for donators?

Bronze, Silver, Gold, Platinum Supporter... or even a Whatever-hell-you-want-within-reason tag.

10
Programming / Re: Depixelating
« on: April 07, 2014, 04:11:31 am »
After looking at the abstract for the algorithm, I think I can grab some ideas from it to improve the SABR shader.

I need to hunt for the full whitepaper, though.

It does look amazing for low res "cartoony" shapes that have very low color bit depth... and they even say themselves that it kinda sucks for anything meant to look realistic (like, even remotely).  But they have some good ideas on ways to decide which edge to extend in upsampling.  The technique looks calculation intensive, at least when taken to the extreme shown in the supplemental material -- whenever an algorithm starts talking about optimizing splines and graphs, I start to suspect it's not realtime.  I don't even want to think about the amount branching that would be required for a full implementation.

5xBR is circa 2011/2012, and this abstract was supposedly written in 2011, so it's possible 5xBR is based on it in part.  Maybe, maybe not.

EDIT: The technique proposed isn't really suitable for realtime rendering.

11
Suggestions / Re: Pilots... for interceptors?
« on: April 07, 2014, 03:58:27 am »
I could totally see myself or someone else modifying the source code to incorporate ideas like this, but I would advise against making your own fork before the codebase is stable (way past 1.0 release).

Anyways, hi forum. :P

Pages: [1]