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.
Nothing special about terrain here, so I assume no.Have you checked the weapon itself though? I recall some having a stat inbuilt that gives them less/more damage against terrain.
It was consistent before, showing only one of those options.Understood. Is there some way to make the mod differentiate and use different combinations of keys to lead to different screens or would that require code changes in OXCE itself?
People wanted both options.
I can't make both of you happy.
its supposed to be hard. its not even supposed to have every single battle winnable.But that's not the issue. I am pretty sure OP, whose side I kinda-sorta take, isn't having issue with some battles being unwinnable, but with being surrounded at the very beinning. When the vehicle just stops and the agents unboard, they do so right under the scopes of the enemies and before player manages to make them take even one step, they can fire off.
Might be useful if instead of "conceable" it be used "can be carryed in infiltration missions" or something like that?That probably wouldn't solve the issue, which lies in the fact that no matter if the weapon can be easily hidden, in reality every kind of infiltration mission has its own set of allowed equipment often ignoring how concealable is said weapon.
Sorry, but this is more that that. It's some pervasive dumb meme which leaves me dumbfounded and get in the way of proper conversation. I wouldn't mind one or two people being like that, but it's way too pervasive. It's dumb and unhealthy.It's pervasive exactly because/but it's not just a meme. It's a common attitude/idea and one you may disagree with but it doesn't make it any less/more meme or dumb, just less likely to be listened to since in the end it all depends on you, we just provide feedback - including one that may sometimes annoy the hell out of you
Because this is a soft version of "win nao" button.Not being surrounded/shot at by enemy units before the player does anything during first round is a "win nao" button? Or having player's TU lowered is a "win nao" button? Neither seems to be such decisive thing unless someone claims that either players win every battle at the beginning of the first turn or they somehow win by having TU lowered - neither seems reasonable to me.
Who on Earth has ever said that a game has to be fair?Most game developers ever, I'd suspect but it depends whether you see risky challenges as part of it being fair. Either way, developers may make the game challenging, offer obstacles and risky situations but most games of any kind either have progression in the boundaries of certain rules player can understand or the few that don't make that the main challenge to overcome. UFO/XCOM is the former, however.
Why would anyone ask that X-Com should be fair? It's been unfair since the very beginning, that's the whole point.Not at all! Even Julian Gollop, as I recall from his presentation on EGX admitted that he simply is most interested in simulation aspect and that he even added stuff like hush-hush dynamic difficulty in UFO that was slowing down alien progression if the player was having hard time and resuming it once said player was getting better - literally admitting it's because he had hard time and no idea about balancing and it was such stuff that, again, in his opinion made the game playable.
Excuse me, but I find this simply confusing. This isn't a sport game.Probably doesn't have to be. Though I guess the difference here is based on opinion where the fairness is. I don't mean "every situation offers same difficulty to each sides allowing initial equal chance of success" (a trait of most sport games), but I find important to limit situations with player being screwed over by no fault on their own under circumstances they couldn't really prevent or manage (prefering harsh but understandable screw-ups due to tactical/strategic mistakes and taking risks) even if you'd consider it a fair challenge.
No. Only funny references are fun.Hey, some subtle old game references can be fun and I am pretty sure we have such already in the dossiers.
HOW DO I INSTALL THIS MOD?
- Get and unpack the latest OpenXCom Extended. You can download it from here: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,5258.0.html
- From the original, latest/patched version of the "UFO - Enemy Unknown"/"X-COM: UFO Defense" game copy relevant data listed in the readme file in the UFO folder of installed OpenXCom Extended.
- Unpack the mod archive into "[main OpenXCom folder]\user\mods" - you may need to create those folders first if you start fresh.
- Run the game and enable the mod from the dropdown bar in the mod selection menu.
It is assumed that the beach resort is so tightly controlled by Osiron that hiding a gun in your bag will not suffice.Oh, that sounds alright. I don't recall any explanation like that included in any fluff though. Did I manage to forget it already? If not, would be nice to drop more such tidbits keeping the suspension of disbelief together.
Come on, if it was otherwise, you wouldn't have a beach mission at all, you'd have another boring Mr. Smiths vs. poor bastards shootout.True. Though I admit it is a bit jarring when the agents are sent to the mission against armed opponents with nearly no equipment for the sake of maintaining incognito personas when it immediately turns out that even without any particular provocation, Osiron starts attacking them on sight, making it a bit moot.
What the hell is wrong with this community? Why are we even talking about such obvious things? You all act like levels 1-4 were some kind of tiered tutorial levels. Why on Earth would anyone thing that?Absolutely nothing. People here have various ideas, talk, agree or disagree about things but it's pretty regular stuff. I don't think people act like anything, some just point out where they see what issues relative to their expectations. It can be disregarded, addressed, opinion changed but just because it's mentioned - there's nothing wrong.
And about artificially decreasing the AI units' starting TU: how about we lower your TUs instead? Will this be fair and fun? Will you enjoy it?Simple logic: will doing so solve the issue people mention in thsi thread without introducing bigger issues? If so, yes, but I am pretty sure that wouldn't do anything, if anything - it'd make the issue reported bigger.
If not, why are you trying to penalize the poor AI, which stands no chance against a human brain anyway?Because it's not a matter of AI, it being poor or not, being hard or not but whether it's okay start of certain rounds, at least according to some players, is fair or not. People's issue doesn't lie in making AI better/worse right now, but in the fact that sometimes no matter how good or bad player would be they're being punished before they even get to do something that would warrant that punishment.
Hmm, this seems to be in line with the Bulletproof Coat, which is a later game armour.
But I understand you're thinking of something more, umm... rigid. As in, higher raw armour values.
If you have something else in mind, please elaborate.Alright, once the new version hits and I'll have some time to get into it for longer I'll take a look through each armor in particular and their stats and send over certain comparisons and observations in DM for you to consider, accept and/or reject them, so you will have something more than vague impressions to go by. Sounds alright?
There could be flavor text to accompany this change, like the random events.I really like this idea. In fact, I wouldn't mind some sort of one-time guaranteed random events for various bigger changes in the world in general. Stuff like foreshadowing of certain events informing one that council/player received intel about this or that (rare creature, some sightings, special mission or new type of it being unlocked/disappearing).
1) Why the assumption that X-Com uses this specific material you mentioned? I would have no idea.Because aramid yarns of various types are already basis of majority of available protective vests, though usually they're the popular kevlar. Since I actually pay researchers big bucks to research adequate protection and, especially early game, one has to be concerned more with melee-wielding hooligans, wild animals etc then it makes only sense that some protection against slashing and puncture attacks is the priority and with various common armors against such kinds of attacks readily available, it feels like those scientists went extra mile just to leave such critical weakness in.
2) Armoured vests have high armour values and no special weakness to blades, which already is good enough.Glad to hear one armor is decent about it, I just don't see why many other, especially the fancy sci-fi ones shouldn't do well against some blades.
"Should"? But why?Consistency, mostly. And progression, ideally - after all, big part of the game, be it mod or vanilla, is escalation and progress toward the realm of sci-fi and that in turn due to recognition that contemporary, yet alone ancient and relatively primitive weapons simply don't cut it anymore (I swear, the pun wasn't intentional).
I would understand an addition of a special anti-melee armour. Oh wait, that's the Bio-Exo.Yup, there are armors which aren't bad against such things. I just ask to have a look at other armors stats as well so none, especially of the actually armored, later game variety will feel weak against regular, bogstandard knives. And while I think of it, adding a mention or two to some armors which don't have such yet of how they do good against, say, plasma weaponry but are pretty brittle and so not good against low-surface kinetic weapons such as stabbing blades could be pretty nice flavor addition too.
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHHA!Come on, you know he probably meant open-field warfare against armored enemies
Sorry, can't comment further