Messages

16

The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 1.4: Signs of Apocalypse

« on: June 05, 2020, 12:05:50 pm »

I can confess that before I get to acquisition of many of cult weapons I usually run around with things much, much better. There's simply no reason for me to invest in AK47, M16 and other FN FALs when I can jump ahead quickly enough to run with UAC and BlackOps stuff. It would make plenty of sense to make average old military weapons much more easily procurable than they are now - I mean, third world country warlords living in the middle of nowhere can easily get themselves crates of similar weapons, but our global hi-tech, internationally-funded organisation with contacts everywhere has to research hi-ranked cultists to get an in on the market?

I understand that in case of some there would be that red tape but in case of others - hell, average US resident, a regular civilian with gun license can shell just a handful of bucks and get a whole crate of mosins delivered to them.

If it's really requiring rebuilding whole tech tree then it's not worth it, but mostly because the rifles themselves are not worth that much compared to alternatives. If however just reordering those network entries would be enough (and possibly getting rid of acquisition entries for the most common stuff weapon markets are flooded with) then those weapons would serve more use than being variety for the sake of aesthetics and would encourage me to research them as some sort of priority, not something to occupy scientists with when I have nothing better to give them.

Also, largely unrelated: would it be possible to have activated directional flashlights built into higher tech pistols and rifles? Such accessories are normally pretty common and it pains me that my super organisation has still to use (way overpriced, but apparently that's by intent) flashlights while carrying their guns even if IRL both civilians and average SWAT-analogue teams can do much better.

17

The X-Com Files / Re: The Second Base - when to build it?

« on: June 05, 2020, 11:57:24 am »

Mudranger is one of those things that seem absolutely useless, but when you use it, you realize how useful it is.

If you get to use regularly and frankly, majority of missions from where I built my base were too far away for it, to the point that the mudranger was basically an expensive waste of space in the hangar.

Don't you have to destroy a Cult in order to get Promo II? I sure as hell am in no position to destroy any cults any time soon. Can't even beat a base.

Doc is right on this one, you can get Promotion II way, way before you'll even get far into destroying any cult.

18

The X-Com Files / Re: Alien Embassies

« on: June 05, 2020, 12:17:12 am »

There were 0 methods in the original game. (you could destroy the alien base, but not get the country back.) So it's still more lenient.

Perhaps there could be a chance to acquire some key randomly from the Council if one is doing a good job? Even if XCOM cannot put direct and public political pressure on various countries, some of the more sympathetic to the cause Council members certainly should have a way.

Also, yes, "Council's Power Chain" entry probably needs adjustment. It's slightly weird in general that X-Com is considered 'political' faction when everything suggests it's a black ops organisation detached from politics and utilized for a brutal, secret war, even if to both detriment and benefit of various Council members.

19

The X-Com Files / Re: The Second Base - when to build it?

« on: June 04, 2020, 11:47:52 pm »

Don't think I am the only one who feels constrained by my first base, eventually. I feel like I need more vehicle space eventually. Also, the need to fight Cults with a Mudranger and get to missions faster.

Mudranger I never used since it's just too impractical at the range it offers but in general, yes, I suspect that's by design. You simply won't ever manage to fit in every facility and maintain sizable support staff + agent roster with just one base, not without being practically unable to respond to missions or scramble fighters later on.

Feels like once you have a million to spare, its time to get started.

A million seems severely too little to me. Just building one base with basic, not even late-game facilities takes several millions, and then maintaining all that you'll build takes a couple on top of that. Two relatively well equipped bases pretty much finished and well staffed with agents, researchers and engineers set me back over 7 - 8 millions every month, and I am not yet even at the invasion stage.

Is it worth it turning the second base into another research base? Say, putting an intelligence center and prison to turn it into a interrogation base (X-COM GITMO lol), or bio lab/animal pen to start researching live captures. Or just research stuff. Or even a second headquarters, but that seems hella pricey.

I sometimes do make specialized bases but it's mostly to avoid micromanaging and just having one place constructing everything for every base and one researching everything. If you are able to maintain research staff and expensive facilities, nothing stops you from creating second research base, either.

So far I am using my second base as an outpost for running missions and storage. I got what should be like two million in briefcases/bags/criminal cases, and a research that doesn't go fast enough.

Research early game goes very slowly because you lack facilities and staff. The regular, not-specialized laboratory you get after second promotion or so will boost it all considerably, allowing a couple times as many researchers you could house till now.

20

The X-Com Files / Re: "Reactive" missions/events

« on: June 04, 2020, 11:36:52 pm »

There are also mission scripts, which can use conditionals to code some basic logic (if mission A happens, then mission B doesn't, and vice versa), but I doubt that you can fine-tune it enough.

Maybe it couldn't be enough for the more elaborate part of the idea but it should work for the basic "if you missed a mission A, then mission B will happen" that could use it to make it that if mission B does, A isn't allowed? I mean, the same mechanics that disable certain missions at some promotions would probably work.

21

The X-Com Files / Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste

« on: June 04, 2020, 11:27:26 pm »

Frankly I don't know what that post was about; something about M-clicking stuff in the sell screen, that's all I got from it, sorry. Meridian understood and answered, so I didn't bother. (Never even tried to M-click in that screen myself as a player.

Come on, read the post - it was about several things

Aside of the m-click in inventory screens, I also mention how handcuffs seem to be unable to hold anything but the weakest of enemies (though I do notice there are stronger variants of them as well now) and seem to not work on some perfectly humanoid non-human enemies and I also mentioned how armored car wrecks are very light, take very little of storage space and are found late/rare in the game, which means associated research stemming from them is also usually discovered too late to be useful.

Aside that:

I managed to research and am able to use laser weapons before E-115 research (pretty sure it was due to a mission with Men in Black who dropped some of those rifles). In fact, I finished Elerium research months after I've got myself gauss base defences and only now laser weapons at all tech is unlocked. It's fine, but if I already researched actual pieces of laser weaponry, shouldn't that unlock the theoretical tech itself?

Got a cave with shamblers in them, they seem to be stuck, completely unmoving in what appears solid rock according to the map (no ability to get there either) - visible since bughunt mode activated. Also, they're a joke to fight since the narrow corridors make it impossible for them to pass through. Since I remember reporting similar issues before, even with smaller enemies - perhaps caves could be made a bit more spacious, with more wider corridors and no isolated pockets creatures would get stuck in? Especially since average digging equipment and explosives aren't that great against terrain blocks while using them to dig out enemies that shouldn't be there in the first place strikes me as somewhat weird.

Yes, there is no way around this.

Is there really no possibility to move where items are being spawned for the squad? I wouldn't even mind moving squad itself together with them to those evac titles at the Entrance. After all, I assume the fact that in case of vehicles they spawn next to agents on vehicle evac square is not by a coincidence?

22

The X-Com Files / Re: concealable is not concealable

« on: June 01, 2020, 09:16:47 pm »

I think tapatalk put it back. It was glitching some days ago.

I won't be surprised if it's reapplied whenever you use that Tapatalk to access your account or post with it. But we're getting off-topic now.

23

The X-Com Files / Re: "Reactive" missions/events

« on: June 01, 2020, 09:15:12 pm »

I was thinking something along the lines of:
Got rare mission A. If mission A is not completed, you've got random events B and C as well as mission D showing up. If mission A is completed, it also disables prematurely, before they would have a chance to show up B, C and D. Of course, if we'd want to go extra ambitious, we could even add completely branching paths. If mission A is complete, events/missions B, C and D get disabled but another mission E is enabled. Etc etc

Generally, it's all like the idea in the first post: "If rare mission is not stumbled upon or lost, allow some 'another chance' missions, or alternative consequence missions and events to show up later. If the player manages to do it, don't enable or disable those 'you've got another chance' missions/events".

Examples already provided for stuff like Morozova or spider queen. Probably many more could be made. Hell, I can think of and probably could write you mock up texts for many events (by 'events' I mean those popup messages describing random stuff happening, often affecting council's score) that could show up or be unavailable depending on successes in various missions, story developments etc but that's slowly moving away from the main point of this idea and even more of work for you to add them in and I don't know if you'd be interested in such.

24

The X-Com Files / Re: Troop Deployment: Unfair?

« on: May 31, 2020, 09:44:41 pm »

That's a big subject, happy to discuss it later

Looking forward to it!

You've very welcome to open a thread on this, and I'll be interested in reading it, but naturally it will be addressed to the developers.

Keeping the "quick and dirty" approach in mind, I was thinking more about it being work in regards to mapping. Adjusting each map and enemy spawn so one would be some distance from them during base assault (as usually most of them does seem to be inside their outposts), but could still risk being surrounded as it is right now in regular "strange creatures" missions.

25

The X-Com Files / Re: The OpenXcom Files: Tips and Tricks!

« on: May 31, 2020, 09:41:09 pm »

Since I don't think anyone mentioned it here and the big post above mentions dividing troopers by roles, remember there are templates for loadouts. You can use generalized template when in inventory screen using quicksave/quickload (F5 and F9). It even works for vehicle item loadouts as well. S and L will just save personalized loadout for that trooper if you want something more custom.

26

The X-Com Files / Re: "Reactive" missions/events

« on: May 31, 2020, 09:23:49 pm »

Can the code responsible for taking some missions out of circulation upon attaining certain promotion ranks be used? If I am not mistaken and it's not just a coincidence, there is some mechanics that introduces new missions and makes other seemingly not available after certain stage of the game? At least I had game pretty reliably spawn missions like Haunted Asylum or Natasha Morozova's Hideout but only once and never again upon completion.

27

The X-Com Files / Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste

« on: May 31, 2020, 09:00:35 pm »

Umm... Sorry, what? I have no idea what you mean.

Let me link it. It's just some earlier post that Meridian answered first part of but the later content went without any confirmation if it's a bug or intended etc.

Also, I was doing the Asylum mission, this time trying the "node way" rather than cleansing everything that moves and isn't human. However, a few issues: first, items I brought with me at the beginning of the mission were left outside of Entrance/evacuation tiles, meaning everything my agents didn't carry with them was lost. Second, apparently all civilians were counted as dead and the point malus from it was great enough that even succesful mission ended at a loss.

I really like that alternative way of doing the mission and I wouldn't mind more stuff like that but could there be some way to avoid similar issues so those alternative ways won't be simply worse? For example, killing all enemies upon node destruction?
Speaking of the node, is there any particular way of destroying it? I had to throw quite a few grenades (the only explosives I was allowed in the mission) and shoot at it from the floor below before it got destroyed.

Lastly, I really expected to be able to take stuff like rosary for the mission. It's categorized as junk item but even parapsychology research claimed we gotta try everything. So, being able to deck out my agents as exorcists seems pretty reasonable and good idea for a haunted asylum.

28

The X-Com Files / "Reactive" missions/events

« on: May 31, 2020, 02:52:57 pm »

A small idea I've thought up when I was playing. Some missions, when not embarked upon are rare and lost seemingly forever, but with almost no lasting consequences. I wonder if it'd be possible to add missions or even those random events dependant on whether previous missions were done by certain point of the game, both to allow player to have another try (or experience at all) at the content previously missed in some form, and to make overall progression less linear.

I think about stuff like Red Dawn making a big offensive if Morozova is never found or defeated at all, sometimes random events talking about cleaners team sent to some past Red Dawn lodgings being taken out by some sniper and a chance for a small undercover mission where Morozova was tracked down without almost any of her comrades and the player sends underequipped, covert agents to try to take her out/in, where tactical thinking will be much more helpful than simple pistols against her customized rifle.

Or how I have seen the mission with Spider Queen, before it disappearing and not happening anymore despite years passing since then - would be nice to have development of that for players in similar situation or one's simply lost the mission. Moderately frequent regular spiders attacks in random places similar to regular strange creature sighting missions that wouldn't stop till one would track and fight (much more likely to show up till defeated) a queen again, but this time perhaps more of her kids are the armored spider variant serving as proper guards.

It'd probably take some work (depending on how developed one would want such missions) and some of it could be missed by certain players so I understand if it's just too much to do, but on chance it does sound interesting, it certainly would allow other players who missed previous content some chance at it and add to the feeling of player actions and decisions mattering more.

29

The X-Com Files / Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste

« on: May 31, 2020, 02:04:01 pm »

All right, I'll check.

Do you happen to have a proper save?

Sorry, didn't make any to send over at the time but I'll make sure to do so in the future should the issue remain unresolved and I'll stumble upon it again.

That aside, are all those weapon clips that aren't clips intentional? And just in case, can I get confirmation on the handcuffs and the like stuff from the previous post?

30

The X-Com Files / Re: Troop Deployment: Unfair?

« on: May 31, 2020, 01:56:46 pm »

Hey. Will try to keep it shorter (especially since it probably will be already quite big) as while we kinda-sorta may understand each other by now, it does seem we moved from debating idea itself to what beliefs regarding gameplay we have for why we want/don't want it. I mean, it's not a bad conversation either but I suspect you have better things to do

Except it doesn't make sense. You start with full TUs despite just having landed, why wouldn't the AI units have it worse? IT's illogical.

Alright, keeping your "makes sense" priority in mind:

Why it'd make sense from the standpoint of logic/believability: X-COM likely doesn't mill around before round starts. I imagine that when the battle begins it's immediately after sudden surprise insertion, when geared up agents just jump out of vehicle or, in case of covert mission are not being paid too much attention to and are just breaking cover.

From the standpoint of mechanics: AI has infinite, constantly regenerating, trained and geared up enemies it populates each mission with at no cost. It doesn't, need, can or should concern itself with saving or maintaing any number of them outside of appearances of self-preservation. At the same time, it simulates them as detached groups or single units present in location doing their own stuff. It doesn't have it worse either way.

The point of the game is after all aggressive sudden strike with teams of costly, trained agents disrupting enemy plans after all, but the player gets no proper preparation phase safe for gearing up (which is in place of doing so at the base), cannot choose any entry point, decide angle of attack etc; even when attacking enemy installations he doesn't approach them from safe distance, his units can just pop right in the middle of it all. Since we don't really have stealth mode of Firaxis' XCOM2 that is used to mitigate similar issues, something helping situation where only player is really suffering any lasting losses anyway, especially due to plunging into the middle of enemy group which IS illogical - would help.

I can't speak for Julian Gollop, but I think he meant a simulation in a specified range. You simulate ground battles, but you don't simulate the Geoscape level, because dynamic difficulty is directly contradictory to simulation.

Anyway, I don't think it is in any way relevant here.

Yup, he realized that himself but decided to put in it because simulation on its own doesn't always mean decent gameplay and some things have to be worked around. I suspect simulations in games often lack a lot of factors and elements to be truly realistic and often those who do still need elements handwaved to make the simulation manageable and the game fun.

Anyway, that was in regards to any "it was intended this way/that's the point of the game" arguments, to point out that even the creator himself didn't plan a lot of how the game is seen, just didn't manage it as thoroughly.

Well, I'm not good at balancing myself. Actually, balance is not even on my list of objectives. I only aim for things making sense, and also to show all parts of the game properly.

That is some sort of balancing consideration. Balance doesn't have to always mean "everyone gets the same" after all, even more so in a single player game - a thing which I think we got in agreement on, too! That's also why the idea of giving player certain capabilities AI doesn't have as AI/player already have different capabilities and the rest serves the way of presenting gameplay.

Fair. But I disagree that opting out from a battle is being "screwed over". If you decide to do the battle and then inevitably lose, then yeah, you may be screwed - but it was totally your fault. And I agree it wouldn't be cool otherwise.

Let me differentiate - I agree that in general, having a hard battle it's better to evacuate from is alright, hell - it may make for some cool, dramatic scenes. It's the exception of one situation I hope to resolve: sometimes you don't experience the battle and miss the experience. Without some sort of management of enemy actions in the very beginning, the player doesn't even get to realize the battle is undoable as upon just embarking agents suffer loses in the first turn, with game offering no way of handling that save for savescumming.

Also, only slightly related - would be nice if missions one evacuated from still provided points for things the player did manage to achieve (killed enemies, secured artifacts), not just subtracted for losses and with every civilian in the area automatically killed with no chance anyone escaped or hid.

Sorry to speak so, umm, directly, I do not invite confrontation and frankly I don't even think we disagree, but I think there is a bit of miscommunication. So I'm just explaining my position, hopefully well enough.

Noted. For future reference, as I am sure we may have different approach to other things in general, I bear you or anyone else I talk 'bout stuff with no ill will either, offering feedback and thoughts hoping for the game to improve as much as possible/solve some issues as I see them. It's unlikely people will agree on everything ever and that's uderstandable as well.

I totally agree, but in order to achieve a more polished experience we would have to sacrifice randomness (prepare special starting areas and such), which IMO would really be too much of a cost.

True. I would imagine it'd best depend on the mission (investigating rumors about stuff in the area and getting ambushed /stumbled upon said "stuff" vs planned attack on stationary enemy base). Plus I understand that'd be pretty huge undertaking. It's only because of that I drop such "quick & dirty" ideas like the TU cut - in hopes of getting at least slightly similar result but without having to work on something huge. It's certainly not ideal but, eh, not many other ideas of handling OPs issue - and that is, even if not big, is just kinda a meh thing (wouldn't guess so given how big walls of texts I make, would you? ).