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 - Delian

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 16
61
OXCE Suggestions DONE / Re: [DONE] craft preview
« on: July 27, 2022, 10:17:52 am »
Edited: nevermind, I'm dumb

62
The original suggestion tries to address two problems:
1. having to constantly enable / disable craft weapons
2. craft weapon ammo waste

Would the new states solve problem #1?
For cannons, you wouldn't have to disable them at the end of the dogfight anymore, but you'd still have to micromanage the rearming. You'd still have to manually enable rearming when you notice that your ammo is 149/200, but then be careful to only fill it to 199/200 so that you don't waste ammo.
For missiles, the amount of micromanagement is the same. In both cases you need two clicks.
Original 1 (keeping missiles disabled): 1 click to enable missiles during dogfight, fire missiles, return to base and rearm missiles, 1 click to disable missiles at the beginning of the next dogfight
Original 2 (keeping missiles enabled): 1 click to disable missiles during dogfight (if you don't need them), 1 click to enable missiles at the end of the dogfight.
Suggested: 1 click to enable missiles during dogfight, fire missiles, 1 click to disable missiles, return to base and rearm missiles

I think that most players don't keep their missiles disabled tho... so my opinion is that, the original behavior, even when micromanaging missiles during battles, isn't really improved here. OP says that "disabling the weapon in base disables the weapon by default in dogfights", but that's false. There is no "default" weapon behavior and it doesn't matter whether you toggle it in base or during a dogfight.

Would the new states solve problem #2?
No. Just decreases your chance of fucking up and wasting ammo.

Would statisticalBulletConservation solve problem #1?
For cannons, you wouldn't have to disable them at the end of dogfight anymore, and you also wouldn't have to micromanage the reaming anymore.
For missiles, the amount of micromanagement is the same.

Would statisticalBulletConservation solve problem #2?
Yes.

I should also note that players usually like to keep their weapons fully armed (in some cases, you need all the ammo to down enemy craft anyway).
So in general I think that statisticalBulletConservation (or whatever you wanna call it) for craft ammo is a simpler and better solution.

63
XPiratez / Re: [MAIN] XPiratez - N1 29-Apr-2022 Every Day Is Caturday
« on: July 25, 2022, 07:02:20 pm »
Lizard Hide isn't used for anything. Reaper Hide is, however.

64
it make easier to maintain Cartesian cross of all crafts and solders/armors

Maintaining it with YAML anchors is just as easy. You don't need to correct all the craft, just correct the anchor.

As for armors vs soldier types... each serve their own purpose, so I'm not sure. Deployments already have startingCondition with allowedArmors and allowedSoldierTypes. So maybe crafts could have both as well.

65
Not for each soldier type, but for each soldier type group. The crafts would still be restricted to their respective races.

If you'd construct a terror_ship_for_ethereals (this ship would have allowedSoldierTypes of ethereal soldier, ethereal leader, sectopod, etc..), then sectoids wouldn't be allowed on this craft. But if you added a manufacture design that takes terror_ship_for_ethereals as material and produces terror_ship_for_sectoids, then it wouldn't be a problem. Well, besides needing a lot of manufacturing designs for all combinations heh.

66
soldiers with "tag A" can only be crewed with "tag A" soldiers

The "allowedSoldierTypes" solution would allow you to do this just fine. Since the property is a list, you simply add all soldiers, that are allowed on the same craft, to that list.

67
I think features which are designed to be used only in a single mod aren't useful enough to implement.

So, I think the solution that adds a new property to crafts called allowedSoldierTypes (array of strings), makes the most sense, because it would also be usable by other mods.

If you have 10 different alien races, then thusky would need 10 different crafts, each restricted to a single alien race. So the player(alien) would have to buy/manufacture the craft specific for the race that they'd want to use on that craft.

68
OXCE Suggestions DONE / Re: [Suggestion] Monthly purchase limit
« on: July 21, 2022, 10:56:45 am »
For now, I'm against adding any fluctuating prices or randomness features, because randomness can be achieved through other modding features. Similarly, I think a custom reset interval is unnecessary. If, for instance, you wanted the interval to be 10 days, well, that's same as limit of 3 per month. If you wanted the interval to be 10 months, then that can be achieved through manufacture that requires 10 material items with availability of 1 per month. Altho... a possible solution involves allowing decimal numbers for monthly availability of items/soldiers/craft. For instance, if the modder sets "monthlyBuyLimit" of an item to be 0.1, then each month 0.1 is subtracted from the item's "boughtCounter". So after 10 months, the "boughtCounter" would reach 0 and the item would be available for purchase again.

69
OXCE Suggestions DONE / Re: [Suggestion] Monthly purchase limit
« on: July 20, 2022, 10:25:38 pm »
Well, the storage limit and monthly purchase limit are two relatively different things. Also, I'm not suggesting any economy features. Event scripts I suppose can give you a certain set of items per month for free, but that's not quite the same (or convenient) as simply paying money to buy them from the shop.

70
Can you actually elaborate what's the in-game reason for alien-stunned civs being penalty-free, yet player-stunned civs being penalised?

The in-game reason is: "Aliens came to kill some civvies and they have a quota to fill. They can't fill this quota with all the unnaturally stunned civilians lying around. Therefore, they decided to also kill the stunned civilians".
If you're talking about the solution that revolves around a purely point penalty, then, "The government is scoring your conduct on a mission. You need to save all the civilians you can, but any additional harm to them for which you are personally-responsible will leave a severe blemish on your record."


So you don't consider ohartenstein's or Nord's oppinion relevant

Ah, I must've missed them among the mod authors, sorry about that. Yes, their opinion is relevant. Both recognized the issue, but neither expressed it in a clear-cut way on whether this should or shouldn't be fixed at an AI level. Both seem to favor the point penalty solution. I also think the point penalty solution is not bad, but again, a major problem with it is that players could destun civilians to bypass the penalty...

This is intended and consistent behaviour, not a flaw. It's not for you to decide that people are "playing the game wrong", let alone force detrimental and unnecessary changes on others.

So let me get this straight. You're arguing that, aliens being unable to attack unconscious units is intended behavior? And players abusing this fact by stunning civilians is "players playing the game the way it was intended"?

71
OXCE Suggestions DONE / [DONE][Suggestion] Monthly purchase limit
« on: July 20, 2022, 04:40:18 pm »
A feature that would allow limiting the amount of certain items/craft/soldiers that the player can purchase per month would open many doors for the mod authors.

Among other things, the mod authors could then also limit the amount of items the player can manufacture per month (by requiring a material with monthly purchase limit).

72
>how often do civilians actually get stunned?
As long as there exists a chance that aliens stun a single civilian, it's good enough cause for concern.

>You have yet to show that establishing who stunned a civilian is a relevant concern
I've already explained that it's a relevant concern because it would punish players who don't use that exploit. Should those players be punished regardless? Maybe. Perhaps a solution would be to write a function for dynamic score based on how damaged/stunned a civilian is at the end of the mission, regardless of who did it. But then, players could use destun items to destun stunned civilians to further game such a solution, so you'd need a counter to a counter to a counter...
Anyway, my position remains at "preserving vanilla behavior if the player isn't abusing the exploit", tho any solution would be better than no solution I suppose.

>using "unrealistic" would invalidate ~90 of the game mechanics.
Not that kind of unrealistic. Unrealistic based on the established game mechanics. I guess a better word would be "inconsistent". Generally it's good game design for game elements to behave in a predictable manner.

>squad tactics / medkits
Irrelevant.

>You only need to change two entries
You forgot "painImmune" in your mod. And no, it's way more complicated than that. Some mods use many different units as civilians. And in different roles. The same unit can sometimes be a civilian, other times an enemy. It would be complicated and with high maintenance cost. Also, any new modder that comes along would be oblivious of the problem and of the solution.
Essentially, this is a problem with the game, not a problem with any mod. So a solution that involves modding is at best a dirty hack.

>something that is pointless for anybody but you
You really need to tone down your personal incredulity. So far no major mod authors have given an opinion on the matter.

>you either have no idea what you're talking about or you're simply delusional
In the AIModule::setupPatrol() you have code where, in base defense missions, aliens seek out base modules to destroy. This code could be reused so that aliens would seek out tiles with stunned civilians on them to attack.
A more complicated solution would involve modifying AIModule::selectNearestTarget() so that if no valid visible targets are found, the function does a 2nd pass (so a low priority) over stunned civilians and returns the nearest one valid (visible, attackable, hostile unit has rifle, etc). Of course, other places in the class expect _aggroTarget to be a standing unit, so several other modifications would be required.

>If you simply can't refrain from stunning every last civilian while playing vanilla
I'm neither playing vanilla, nor have problems refraining from stunning civilians. But I'm worried about other players being unable to refrain from doing so, so I want to help them ;)

73
>I honestly don't remember aliens ever stunning civilians during terror missions
It doesn't happen often in vanilla, but it happens quite regularly in other larger mods that have plenty of lower-powered weapons.

>such as giving a penalty for stunned civilians
As I wrote, I don't know how to mod or write a script that would give negative points for when player stuns a civilian.

>Make them immune to stun damage or give them a high stun recovery rate instead
1. It's unrealistic that civilians would just magically be immune to stun damage and destun faster than all other units.
2. It's not practical for the mod authors, since it would require making special stun-resistant copies of all the existing civilian units.
3. Since this is a vanilla exploit, it makes more sense that the counter is implemented at a level where it can affect vanilla games as well.

>I just remember a lot of dead civvies... I don't see anything that justifies the time and effort...
Personal incredulity logical fallacy.

>"locking" mod options isn't really a thing. Mod authors don't get to decide what players are to consider balanced or fun
Yes, it is. And yes, they do.

There are plenty of options available through scripting and item recovery
Item recovery doesn't consider who stunned the civvie. And scripting... there's no end of mission hook and no functions for modifying mission points.

74
give negative points for stunned civilians
If the player is not using the exploit and aliens stun civilians, then this solution would punish the player, so I'm not sure if this is a good solution. Basically, the player would only have to get negative score if the player was the one that stunned a civilian, even if the civilian was later destunned with the usage of destun items. I don't think this can be modded. I also don't know how high susceptability would be possible.

You're literally complaining that people "are using an exploit" and your solution is to add....and option for people who don't want to use this "exploit"?
I wrote "I suggest modifying, or adding an option". So as far as I'm concerned, it's perfectly fine if this isn't an option but a permanent change to standard behavior.
As for the option, you seem to be misunderstanding this. The point of the option isn't for players to change it. It's so that mod authors can lock it in their mods. Similar to "UFO Extender Accuracy" or "Instant grenades", it's for the mod authors to decide whether such an option would be balanced in their mods or not.

you're complaining about aliens not killing stunned civilians instead aliens not killing stunned soldiers.
Hmm, that's an interesting idea... I like it! But it's irrelevant to this topic :P It's also a bit more complicated with soldiers.

75
I do not know if this is good suggestion, you can't control Civ and then are only big lability, at least now you have race to who reach them first.
Adding this make stunning pointless and guarantee that most of civilians will die and remove strategic options for player.

Well yeah, the whole purpose of civilians is that they're supposed to be a liability. You're supposed to be aggressive and take risks to save them as fast as possible. Stunning isn't a "strategic option", it's an exploit and you know it. If anything, stunning civilians removes strategy from the game. Instead of having to carefully advance and position your units, and cover civilians, you simply stun them, no risk at all. Well, even if this suggestion was implemented, you'd still be able to stun civilians and drag them to a safe spot, so it wouldn't be pointless.

Anyway, it would be useful to get the opinion of the mod makers on this matter.

Pages: 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 7 ... 16