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 - krautbernd

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63
1
Would surely be nice to have, but in my oppinion it would sufficient to populate the soldiers from the last loaded save. If no save has been loaded the list should revert to the original/default one.

2
Or just leave them as they are. I don't think it's such a big deal since the game still reminds the player that they can now buy/manufacture both weapons, so the curious can go check out the Pedia and others can skip straight to acquisition.

But it's not how the Stingray works. There are two projects, but the second one has cost 0, so is unlocked immediately.

If you guys think it's okay, then I'll stick with it and won't touch the older projects.

Has anybody actually reported problems with how the existing heavy launchers are unlocked? Just asking.

3
Yeah, I see no problem with this being in line with the other launchers. If anything it would be kind of strange if this was the only launcher that needed a separate research topic, something neither the stingray nor the stormlance variants require.

4
Thanks for all the valuable input.

What I gathered is, summed as briefly as possible:
1. No craft is universally useless (opinions vary by people, including myself), so it'd have to be a completely new craft.
2. Kitsune may come too early.
->
Quote
@Solarius, OP offered an alternative - a heavy missile version of the PIKE, akin to the stingray. Why wouldn't this be an option?

Still waiting for a comment on this one. We have a "heavy" version of the STINGRAY and of the STORMLANCE - why is the PIKE exempt from this?

5
OpenXcom Extended / Re: [Suggestion] Game Startup Cache
« on: August 02, 2022, 01:56:51 pm »
I think better way would be simply finding what take most time now, and try mitigate it. What exactly take most of time during load?
Maybe there is simply performance bug that do some stupid thing that make load so long?
I think this would be a far better and saner approach.

6
The X-Com Files / Re: Any special requirements to make gauss weapons?
« on: July 30, 2022, 04:32:30 pm »
If the beam is dispersed enough to make that viable, it's more like a cone of fuck-everyone-who-looks-that-way-in-general. So problematic if there are friendlies running around all over, as it happens in many scenarios.
And if your beam is dispersed enough to blind while looking in the general direction you can focus said beam to deal higher damage to your actual target. You would have to purposely design your laser to deal less damage over a larger area. No laser weapon meant to "kill" or destroy actually does that. You want to impart as much energy as possible over as small an area as possible in as short a timeframe as possible (-> pulsed lasers).

7
Missiles and cannons are quite different in how they are mounted, so I'm not sure it would make sense to give both to the Thunderstorm.

@Solarius, OP offered an alternative - a heavy missile version of the PIKE, akin to the stingray. Why would'nt this be an option?

8
The X-Com Files / Re: Any special requirements to make gauss weapons?
« on: July 29, 2022, 02:29:19 pm »
On the subject of esoteric weapons having special effects - Lasers should blind the targets similar to a flashbang.
Why? Unless you literally score a headshot that doesn't make sense, given that the aim of the weapons is specifically not to dazzle (i.e. wide unfocused beam) but to kill. You wouldn't want to dump all your energy over a wide area (i.e. whole body) but focus it.

9
It could be argued, that the presence of cannons is not suitable on a THUNDERSTORM, due to considerations of its engine technology and maneuverability constraints, etc.
Let's be serious here, there are no such restrictions. The ability to carry only heavy missiles is specifically to prevent or at least disincentivize this craft from being used as a "universal" inteceptor, and I can understand why. If this prevents you from getting the best enjoyment out of the game simply add cannon slots to the craft.

As far as heavy missiles are concerned though I see no reason why other light missiles should not have a "heavy" variant akin to the stingray. They don't necessarily need to have double the ammuntion (balancing etc), but this would add to the usefulness (and utilarization by players).

10
OpenXcom Extended / Re: [Suggestion] Compact save file formatting
« on: July 27, 2022, 03:59:15 pm »
I am against omitting values - default or otherwise - from the save files. The benefit is at best negligible, but it would make modifying/debugging more tedious. I don't want to have to search the rul files to look up default values.

There can be thousands of items in a battlescape game[...]
What are you loading up the skyranger with "thousandths of items" for? I don't even get close to a thousandth items in a late/end game battlescape save in XCF with a fully kitted out squad.

11
The X-Com Files / Re: Random events
« on: July 25, 2022, 11:21:25 pm »
When you post a reply, below the text input field you'll find something titled "Attachments and other options".

12
The X-Com Files / Re: Random events
« on: July 25, 2022, 01:10:46 pm »
There is no way to get live chupacrabas outside of specific missions or events - both of which you say you haven't encountered - unless something buggy is going on.

Yes, the save file in question might be helpful.

13
The X-Com Files / Re: Random events
« on: July 24, 2022, 01:42:37 am »
Onle in the rul file afaik.

14
OpenXcom Extended / Re: [Suggestion] Purchase from a country
« on: July 23, 2022, 02:13:18 pm »
Potentially destroying whatever balance the modder might have been aiming for with this feature.

Basically, why implement and play with a feature and then make said feature irrelevant?

I imagine one can try to balance for both regaining countries and purchaces being tied to countries, but such a mod would be quite different from anything we have today, and need a considerable amount of design to pull it off well.
But that's not a coherent argument. You're claiming that a feature - which would have to be specifically included in a mod - is dangerous to implement because the mod would have to be balanced around it.

That's true for pretty much any feature that's included. That alone doesn't make a feature "fraught with danger".

The only way this could "break" existing mods ("because most mods don't include countries rejoining XCOM", according to you) would be to actually add this to an existing mod without taking into account what the feature does. Yeah, and if I give the basic rifle 500 hitpower it's probably also going to "break" the mod, or if I add elerium as a fuel to the players starting craft. Or if I lock important reasearch behind items that the player can't obtain. I don't see how this inherently any more "fraught with danger" that any other modification, let alone what that should be an argument for.

Regaining countries also doesn't make the feature "irrelevant". What are you even going on about here?

15
OpenXcom Extended / Re: [Suggestion] Purchase from a country
« on: July 22, 2022, 09:20:53 pm »
True, that's not a reason not to implement this. But it does mean using the feature is fraught with danger.
Why? All you have to do is set allowCountriesToCancelAlienPact to true and destroy the base associated with the infiltration.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 63