31
XPiratez / Re: A thread for little questions
« on: August 18, 2022, 12:47:21 pm »
Isn't there a STC that's a weapon?
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email? April 20, 2024, 05:04:18 pm
Did you miss your activation email? April 20, 2024, 05:04:18 pm
News: If you can't login, please contact us with your username and e-mail so we can fix it.
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.
32
OXCE Suggestions Rejected / Re: [Suggestion] Research Progress display improvement
« on: August 18, 2022, 12:45:06 pm »you don't wanna know how the sausage is made.Right. To keep things realistic, information on the actual research project cost should never be revealed to the player.
Let me, umm, circle back a bit to the topic of research progress ratings.
I think most players would agree that the existing research progress ratings are... lackluster to say the least. But how to improve them without giving the player any new information?
Currently, after a research project passes the unknown phase, the player can use the progress ratings to estimate the project's base cost. Just the base cost, not the actual cost. The base cost doesn't tell the player much, but it's still useful information. So let's assume that, if a project passes the unknown phase, it's not considered cheating for the player to know the project's base cost at that point, or for the game to use the base cost information.
With that in mind, I propose the following QoL feature:
In the Current Research window, add a new column (or modify the PROGRESS column) to include information on "chance to finish the project".
A few examples:
Base cost=100, spent=0, allocated=50: Chance to finish shows: UNKNOWN
Base cost=100, spent=34 allocated=10: Chance to finish shows: 0% - POOR
Base cost=100, spent=50, allocated=10: Chance to finish shows: 10% - AVERAGE
Base cost=100, spent=50, allocated=50: Chance to finish shows: 50% - EXCELLENT
Base cost=100, spent=100, allocated=10: Chance to finish shows: 20% - GOOD
Base cost=100, spent=100, allocated=50: Chance to finish shows: 100% - EXCELLENT
This is something that the player can already calculate on their own, no new information is revealed to them. It would simply make it more convenient due to the calculations happening automatically.
If, for instance, the player knows that the base cost is 20, then they can calculate that the actual cost is between 10 and 30. So if they spent 10, then each subsequently allocated scientist would give them a 5% chance to finish the project. If they spent 20, but the project hasn't finished yet, then they can calculate that the actual cost must be between 21 and 30, and each allocated scientist at that point would provide a 10% chance to finish the project. Again, any player can already calculate this, but it would be nice if it was more convenient.
33
OXCE Suggestions Rejected / Re: [Suggestion] Research Progress based on actual project cost
« on: August 18, 2022, 12:34:37 am »
Right. So in conclusion, players have to choose to either be effective or efficient.
Effective - doing the right thing - focus on a single research topic you need, but waste research by overshooting
Efficient - doing it the right way - spread research over multiple topics, but not be able to quickly research the thing you need
For players who wanted to have both, well, they will have to live with the frustration.
Effective - doing the right thing - focus on a single research topic you need, but waste research by overshooting
Efficient - doing it the right way - spread research over multiple topics, but not be able to quickly research the thing you need
For players who wanted to have both, well, they will have to live with the frustration.
34
OXCE Suggestions Rejected / Re: [Suggestion] Research Progress based on actual project cost
« on: August 17, 2022, 10:34:42 pm »
Just to be clear, I've given up on the "show progress based on remaining effort" and "show progress based on actual project cost" features, because your explanation made sense.
However, the research roll over is an entirely different issue.
I've asked you about it, but you didn't reply, so what am I to assume?
However, the research roll over is an entirely different issue.
Do you remember anything said about a... research rollover feature?
I've asked you about it, but you didn't reply, so what am I to assume?
35
OXCE Suggestions Rejected / Re: [Suggestion] Research Progress based on actual project cost
« on: August 17, 2022, 09:57:05 pm »Genuine, ground-breaking research doesn't really work that way.What? No? Research isn't done by shooting in the dark lol, only kids think that way. Sure, sometimes a rare eureka comes flying by coincidentally, but those are exceptions.
Normally, science is done by obtaining data, analyzing data, and then interpreting the data to come to some conclusions or discoveries. Sometimes it's just interpreting existing data. But almost always, it's done with a set goal. If you do research for a living, then you're able to make very good predictions (again, because you do research for a living) for how long each step of the scientific method will take (it's more of a science than art). Not all scientific work yields useful results, but in xcom it does heh.
You can check out the history of semiconductor manufacturing. Process nodes shrink every 2-3 years like a clockwork. Hardly any randomness there.
Anyway, it's fine.
499 scientists collectively managed to come up with the bright idea of blasting alien alloys with EM radiation, and then the other 335 went back in time, saw that they weren't needed to finish the project and decided to redo their day and study laser pistols instead?That's also not... how anything works at all. You don't just... think hard for 24 hours and then at the end of day come up with "an idea", as if you had to wait until the end of the day before you were able to put the idea onto the paper.
No. You work on something, and when you finish it, you start working on the next thing. Even if it's *gasp* in the middle of the day. That's realistic. The scientists are paid to do research, not to sit around.
I've searched the forums for a research roll over feature, but couldn't find any discussion on it, so perhaps this would be a good solution to the problem then.
When a research project is done and there's overflow, you get a popup window to select which other project to overflow into. The overflow would be added to that project's mandays spent.
36
OXCE Suggestions Rejected / Re: [Suggestion] Research Progress based on actual project cost
« on: August 16, 2022, 03:20:10 pm »The player invests 334 mandays.I was thinking it would have to be 500 mandays, since if the game rolled 1500, then 500 would be needed to pass the unknown and make an estimate, and then cheating wouldn't be possible.
Well, in either case, the players would be able to make a lot better estimation of how long a project takes. Which may or may not be realistic. I think that all the necessary realism is already included in that RNG roll that happens. And that people being able to give you good estimates on how long research takes isn't exactly unrealistic, but ok.
Hmm. As a player, I don't particularly care about whether I'm able to make a good estimate of a project or not. It's more about not wasting any scientist-days.
So here's a question. Do you remember anything said about a... research rollover feature? If a project rolls 40 and I put 50 on it, could those 10 wasted roll over to the next project?
37
OXCE Suggestions Rejected / Re: [Suggestion] Research Progress based on actual project cost
« on: August 16, 2022, 01:35:06 pm »
Ok. What were the findings and conclusions of that discussion? Pros and cons of such a user option? Who was for it and who was against it?
38
OXCE Suggestions Rejected / Re: [Suggestion] Research Progress based on actual project cost
« on: August 16, 2022, 01:13:07 pm »
Discussed (and overwhelmingly rejected) where?
39
OXCE Suggestions Rejected / [Rejected] Research Progress based on actual project cost
« on: August 16, 2022, 12:38:06 pm »
Rejection reason: after long discussions, it was decided that this is an unwanted feature (not even as optional feature!)
Currently, the research progress of a research project can show 6 values:
NONE - no scientists are assigned to the project
UNKNOWN - the scientist-days spent on the research project is less or equal to 33.3% of base research project cost
POOR - the amount of assigned scientists is less or equal to 7% of the base research project cost
AVERAGE - the amount of assigned scientists is over 7% and less or equal to 13% of the base research project cost
GOOD: Shown if the amount of assigned scientists is over 13% and less or equal to 25% of the base research project cost
EXCELLENT: Shown if the amount of assigned scientists is over 25% of the base research project cost
Note that the "base research project cost" isn't the same as "actual research project cost", which is base cost modified by RNG (+/- 50%).
This is how it's always been, however, I have a reason to believe that this is actually a bug in the original game. I believe that the original developers intended for the progress to be based on the actual cost, but due to a bug (perhaps a late addition of the rng element), the progress uses base cost instead.
The reasoning is obvious: the progress shown is more or less useless because of how incorrect the information it provides is. A project with "poor" progress can finish in 1 day, and a project with "excellent" progress can take forever to finish. It's impossible to use it to predict how long the research will take, so any player trying to rely on it has only ever ended up confused. Players that try to be efficient are forced to split research into several projects.
Therefore, I suggest that a new option is added to the game that would change how research progress is shown:
"Actual Research Progress"
"Show progress of research projects based on actual (RNG-modified) research costs"
I've already made the required code changes, but I have a few questions:
1. Should I make a pull request for OXCE, or for OXC? (Option under Geoscape or Extended?)
2. What to do with localization?
Currently, the research progress of a research project can show 6 values:
NONE - no scientists are assigned to the project
UNKNOWN - the scientist-days spent on the research project is less or equal to 33.3% of base research project cost
POOR - the amount of assigned scientists is less or equal to 7% of the base research project cost
AVERAGE - the amount of assigned scientists is over 7% and less or equal to 13% of the base research project cost
GOOD: Shown if the amount of assigned scientists is over 13% and less or equal to 25% of the base research project cost
EXCELLENT: Shown if the amount of assigned scientists is over 25% of the base research project cost
Note that the "base research project cost" isn't the same as "actual research project cost", which is base cost modified by RNG (+/- 50%).
This is how it's always been, however, I have a reason to believe that this is actually a bug in the original game. I believe that the original developers intended for the progress to be based on the actual cost, but due to a bug (perhaps a late addition of the rng element), the progress uses base cost instead.
The reasoning is obvious: the progress shown is more or less useless because of how incorrect the information it provides is. A project with "poor" progress can finish in 1 day, and a project with "excellent" progress can take forever to finish. It's impossible to use it to predict how long the research will take, so any player trying to rely on it has only ever ended up confused. Players that try to be efficient are forced to split research into several projects.
Therefore, I suggest that a new option is added to the game that would change how research progress is shown:
"Actual Research Progress"
"Show progress of research projects based on actual (RNG-modified) research costs"
I've already made the required code changes, but I have a few questions:
1. Should I make a pull request for OXCE, or for OXC? (Option under Geoscape or Extended?)
2. What to do with localization?
40
OXCE Suggestions DONE / Re: [DONE][Suggestion] Split aimAndArmorMultipliers
« on: August 14, 2022, 10:39:17 am »
Added two new global ruleset settings aimMultipliers and armorMultipliers, which function the same as the existing aimAndArmorMultipliers, but for each own difficulty feature. These two new settings have priority over aimAndArmorMultipliers, so if all three are set, then aimAndArmorMultipliers has no effect.
Code: [Select]
aimAndArmorMultipliers: [0.75, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.33]
aimMultipliers: [0.75, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.33]
armorMultipliers: [0.75, 1.0, 1.0, 1.0, 1.33]
41
OXCE Suggestions DONE / Re: [DONE][Suggestion] Monthly purchase limit
« on: August 13, 2022, 12:18:34 am »
Thanks a lot for implementing this.
You do realise that... by default all items have no purchase limits. Which is predictable. So you're saying that the game and all the mods are already boring + no mystery + no fun? Why are you here if you hate this boring no-fun game so much lol
For such a feature to be practical, you'd need UI with sliders, like the one xcomapoc has. It would be too much work trying to replicate that UI. Also, that UI would only work well if ALL the items had their limits and market info set. So it would also be incompatible with all the existing mods.
it makes the item’s amount every month utterly predictable.
Predictability = Boring + No mystery + No fun
You do realise that... by default all items have no purchase limits. Which is predictable. So you're saying that the game and all the mods are already boring + no mystery + no fun? Why are you here if you hate this boring no-fun game so much lol
X amount that can be in between 0 and ten.
For such a feature to be practical, you'd need UI with sliders, like the one xcomapoc has. It would be too much work trying to replicate that UI. Also, that UI would only work well if ALL the items had their limits and market info set. So it would also be incompatible with all the existing mods.
42
XPiratez / Re: Stuff I'd love to see in XPiratez!
« on: August 09, 2022, 07:49:18 pm »
I'd like it if a change was made to CHOKING and BIO damage weapon/ammo.
The change would be:
- halve ToStun value
- set RandomStun to false
The reasoning is that, there should be less randomness with stun damage on these weapons. When you're breathing air, there is no random chance whether you'll breathe the air into your lungs or not. You always will (otherwise everyone would asphyxiate eventually due to a bad rng roll lol). So when you're choking, it makes no sense that sometimes you'd get stunned, and sometimes you wouldn't. I think that's quite unrealistic.
Similarly with BIO (poison) weapons. Either the poison is effective on the target, or it's not. There should be no stun randomness from one shot to the next. Consider the following scenario:
You shoot a guy, and he's like, "Haha, you did nothing, I'm immune to your poison!". And then you shoot him again, "Oh no, this poison is very effective, I'm passing out!".
The first shot and the second shot used the same poison, so obviously the above makes no sense. When you take a drug, you expect it to always work, and it's the same with poison.
I think that if the stun damage RNG on these weapons was removed (and stun damage halved, so that the average remains the same), it would make the mod feel more realistic, and it would make the game experience better due to better consistency.
The items I suggest changing are:
CHOKING:
Fire Extinguisher
Foam Grenade
BIO:
Universal Refresher
X-Vampiress
Auto-Harpoon Clip/Poison
Toxi-Lance
Blowpipe Poison Darts
Sleep Dart Clip (might also rename to Poison Dart Clip, because Tranq Dart Clip is already for sleep)
Poisoned Arrows
Scourge Clip/BIO
Cobra Staff (aimed shot)
Poisoned Dagger
Plague Bug
The change would be:
- halve ToStun value
- set RandomStun to false
The reasoning is that, there should be less randomness with stun damage on these weapons. When you're breathing air, there is no random chance whether you'll breathe the air into your lungs or not. You always will (otherwise everyone would asphyxiate eventually due to a bad rng roll lol). So when you're choking, it makes no sense that sometimes you'd get stunned, and sometimes you wouldn't. I think that's quite unrealistic.
Similarly with BIO (poison) weapons. Either the poison is effective on the target, or it's not. There should be no stun randomness from one shot to the next. Consider the following scenario:
You shoot a guy, and he's like, "Haha, you did nothing, I'm immune to your poison!". And then you shoot him again, "Oh no, this poison is very effective, I'm passing out!".
The first shot and the second shot used the same poison, so obviously the above makes no sense. When you take a drug, you expect it to always work, and it's the same with poison.
I think that if the stun damage RNG on these weapons was removed (and stun damage halved, so that the average remains the same), it would make the mod feel more realistic, and it would make the game experience better due to better consistency.
The items I suggest changing are:
CHOKING:
Fire Extinguisher
Foam Grenade
BIO:
Universal Refresher
X-Vampiress
Auto-Harpoon Clip/Poison
Toxi-Lance
Blowpipe Poison Darts
Sleep Dart Clip (might also rename to Poison Dart Clip, because Tranq Dart Clip is already for sleep)
Poisoned Arrows
Scourge Clip/BIO
Cobra Staff (aimed shot)
Poisoned Dagger
Plague Bug
43
XPiratez / Re: A thread for little questions
« on: August 09, 2022, 04:19:59 pm »
They could be infinite, if they were configured like that. But they're not. In N1, the few missions that have them only spawn reinforcements 1-2 times.
44
XPiratez / Re: [MAIN] XPiratez - N1 29-Apr-2022 Every Day Is Caturday
« on: August 07, 2022, 02:00:41 am »
You produce "Recruit: Outlaw Catgirl" to turn the captive into an Outlaw Catgirl
45
XPiratez / Re: Bugs & Crash Reports
« on: August 06, 2022, 03:55:23 pm »
PARTY DRESS /CAT has Bare Hands instead of Nekomimi claws. Is this intended?
STR_GENTLE_PUSH should count towards STR_MEDAL_WRESTLER_NAME
"S-Prize: Omega Rifle" gives Omega Rifle research for free. But "Preq: Omega Rifle" requires Omega Rifle to be researched first :thonking:
STR_GENTLE_PUSH should count towards STR_MEDAL_WRESTLER_NAME
"S-Prize: Omega Rifle" gives Omega Rifle research for free. But "Preq: Omega Rifle" requires Omega Rifle to be researched first :thonking: