61
The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 1.3: Sanity Check
« on: April 14, 2020, 01:50:23 am »
Eh? I thought the voxels were sprite-based? Only for objects and not units?
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email? April 19, 2024, 10:43:56 am
Did you miss your activation email? April 19, 2024, 10:43:56 am
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.
62
The X-Com Files / Re: So, What's -Your- Excuse?
« on: April 14, 2020, 01:29:45 am »
is only game, y u heff to be mad?
63
OXCE Suggestions OK / Re: Land/Underwater craft setting
« on: April 13, 2020, 06:10:16 am »
Apollyon not everyone will prefer your solution, don't assume all modders prefer your way, that's just silly. You can say you think your solution is more robust and clean, sure, but everyone agrees? Nah. I do think it's the most ideal solution as you and Yankes say to just have depth be actual negative altitude, but it seems more difficult to implement than a more "hacky" fix where you just fix this one specific problem. I feel I made the same mistake of pushing my pet feature.
64
The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 1.3: Sanity Check
« on: April 13, 2020, 02:26:11 am »
Maybe chupas are likely to be missed in close-quarters with 122% accuracy because there is a voxel near their center-of-mass voxel which is empty. Think about it, they have that arching form, independent legs. Some other observations:
The stats here seem to suggest to me that cover and size will only be effective at blocking/dodging misses. Each deviation causes 0.08 "max deviation" so real voxel deviation, divided by 2 since it's split between negative and positive. In order for 0-10 "grazes" to cover the whole block, you would have to go to about 50 tiles, so that 5*50*0.04 = 10. Half the block might be more reasonable, at 25 tiles, but that's still pretty crazy range for just a 10% reduction. Theoretically 10% can be noticeable with machine guns that only have 10% CTH anyways.
However chance to roll a miss but hit anyway is significant at most ranges. With average "max deviation of 4", which again is really 2 due to the positive-negative split, at 8 tiles range you still have a 1/3rd chance to hit the target tile if you miss. And cover/size is totally effective at stopping that, since it can hit any voxel on the tile. So oddly enough cover is probably better for close range.
All of this is false if you have cover that's one voxel away from your center of mass though, because then it will block 33% of a hit and 50% of a miss. That's just very rare. Less rare when you kneel below cover that then rises above your gun. On that note, do aliens still try to shoot if they have no LoF to the center of mass? You know, a player can get the "No line of fire!" message but know it's wrong and choose to shoot anyways, can the aliens? I doubt it, but if so cover could be broken, and there was one mission in XCF where I felt like the cover was blocking the vast majority of the shots.
The stats here seem to suggest to me that cover and size will only be effective at blocking/dodging misses. Each deviation causes 0.08 "max deviation" so real voxel deviation, divided by 2 since it's split between negative and positive. In order for 0-10 "grazes" to cover the whole block, you would have to go to about 50 tiles, so that 5*50*0.04 = 10. Half the block might be more reasonable, at 25 tiles, but that's still pretty crazy range for just a 10% reduction. Theoretically 10% can be noticeable with machine guns that only have 10% CTH anyways.
However chance to roll a miss but hit anyway is significant at most ranges. With average "max deviation of 4", which again is really 2 due to the positive-negative split, at 8 tiles range you still have a 1/3rd chance to hit the target tile if you miss. And cover/size is totally effective at stopping that, since it can hit any voxel on the tile. So oddly enough cover is probably better for close range.
All of this is false if you have cover that's one voxel away from your center of mass though, because then it will block 33% of a hit and 50% of a miss. That's just very rare. Less rare when you kneel below cover that then rises above your gun. On that note, do aliens still try to shoot if they have no LoF to the center of mass? You know, a player can get the "No line of fire!" message but know it's wrong and choose to shoot anyways, can the aliens? I doubt it, but if so cover could be broken, and there was one mission in XCF where I felt like the cover was blocking the vast majority of the shots.
65
Help / Re: Ruleset change, mod needed, or static Vanilla
« on: April 12, 2020, 07:45:51 pm »
You can use quickdraw slots for ammo only to simulate a similar effect. Or energy costs, then stims become your ammo. But this doesnt match with the theme so I agree it might be a good idea for OXCE to allow multiple ammo slots of same type.
66
The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 1.3: Sanity Check
« on: April 12, 2020, 06:45:32 pm »
Mathel, you're right only on the basics, % hitchance just decreases deviation. However its influence on deviation is capped at 109, and it's not gaussian, it's equally distributed which point you pick in the cone of fire.
Solarius, it's not. Except for determining how valuable cover and crouch is. And for deciding the value of colt over glock, but you only need basic info for that.
I feel I'm just missing one part. The code is right there at https://github.com/MeridianOXC/OpenXcom/blob/oxce-plus/src/Battlescape/Projectile.cpp.
Deviation = (random number between 0 and 100) - (accuracy * 100) + (50 if sum to the left >= 0 (meaning a miss), else 10).
There are 16 voxels in a tile as Yankes just told us.
Then it's basically (not actually because zShift is complicated) multiplied by (voxelRange / 200), and capped to 1 if it's lower than 1.
The only question that remains is, why is Yankes saying the deviation is 10? It should be 1. 100-120+10 = -10, which will be capped to 1. 1 voxel deviation should never miss. Apparently however, my math should.
Solarius, it's not. Except for determining how valuable cover and crouch is. And for deciding the value of colt over glock, but you only need basic info for that.
I feel I'm just missing one part. The code is right there at https://github.com/MeridianOXC/OpenXcom/blob/oxce-plus/src/Battlescape/Projectile.cpp.
Deviation = (random number between 0 and 100) - (accuracy * 100) + (50 if sum to the left >= 0 (meaning a miss), else 10).
There are 16 voxels in a tile as Yankes just told us.
Then it's basically (not actually because zShift is complicated) multiplied by (voxelRange / 200), and capped to 1 if it's lower than 1.
The only question that remains is, why is Yankes saying the deviation is 10? It should be 1. 100-120+10 = -10, which will be capped to 1. 1 voxel deviation should never miss. Apparently however, my math should.
67
The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 1.3: Sanity Check
« on: April 12, 2020, 04:38:11 am »
No, Yankes pretty much gave all the numbers I wanted to know 
68
The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 1.3: Sanity Check
« on: April 11, 2020, 08:31:35 pm »
Could you plz explain why you would miss a Chupa with 122% point-blank? Or provide a link to an explanation? It seems to me that the deviation should be 1 based on the code, meaning it should deviate by 1/10th of a block from center mass? Excluding CQB I can't see why that would cause a miss.
69
Help / Re: Scripts to make melee more interesting
« on: April 10, 2020, 01:13:09 am »
It's a cheat because the AI can't properly use it, I agree. Actually that's a large part of what this post is here for, making CQB (or more generally melee disruption) not a player-only cheat. AoE was intended to prevent players from just retreating, to put AI and players on the same level.
Out of all these options it is definitely my least favorite, but man why can't you comment on the other stuff instead of cherrypicking the worst and mocking me? ):
Also want to clarify that this is in the help section because I'm only talking about scripts I might want to use in the distant future. Making engine modifications for any of these is and should be out of the question.
Out of all these options it is definitely my least favorite, but man why can't you comment on the other stuff instead of cherrypicking the worst and mocking me? ):
Also want to clarify that this is in the help section because I'm only talking about scripts I might want to use in the distant future. Making engine modifications for any of these is and should be out of the question.
70
Help / Re: Scripts to make melee more interesting
« on: April 07, 2020, 10:50:29 am »
Cuz a 3-meter area of control is so much more broken than 1-meter?
Geez, just ban me already
Geez, just ban me already
71
Help / Scripts to make melee more interesting
« on: April 07, 2020, 07:04:30 am »
"Problem": Player units can bypass CQB by retreating 1 space then firing. All units retreat too easily from CQB. In general melee is more dynamic in chit/mini wargames due to its ability to suppress and disrupt. Melees are glass cannons, which is fine but limiting. (Melee is already awesome with energy+stun+bleed)
Solution 1: Stepping away from adjacent ____ enemies is not allowed.
____ could be CQB-capable, or TUs>50%, or nothing, etc it's not important.
Possible using scripts? All it seems to require is SelectMoveSoundUnit, getting original position, getting position of all enemies, and move prevention.
Problem: AI might try and fail to retreat infinitely.
Solution 2: AoE CQB
Possible using scripts? Probably not.
Solution 3: Melee causes debuffs which discourage retreating, such as TU drain.
Possible using scripts? Only if there's a way to make a miss cause debuffs, or melee is high-accuracy low-damage.
Problem: AI might still try to retreat with their tiny TUs.
Solution 4: Melee gives armor/resistances instead of CQB
Possible using scripts? Yes, as XCOMfiles shows you can have items give armor if they are in cerrtain slots.
Problem: Obviously players will swap to melee at end of turn. Oh yeah, and it's unrealistic.
Possible solution to problem: Make melee weapons big. Have armor adjustment only apply if they had the melee weapon equipped the entire turn using scripts.
Solution 5: 1 free melee attack per turn to buff hit-and-run.
Possible using scripts? Well it requires a melee attack trigger so maybe not.
Problem: AI might not use it.
Solution 6: No-scripts. Flashbangs, stealth, smoke, higher HP in general.
Problem: Limiting, generally doesn't hold in the lategame.
Solution 1: Stepping away from adjacent ____ enemies is not allowed.
____ could be CQB-capable, or TUs>50%, or nothing, etc it's not important.
Possible using scripts? All it seems to require is SelectMoveSoundUnit, getting original position, getting position of all enemies, and move prevention.
Problem: AI might try and fail to retreat infinitely.
Solution 2: AoE CQB
Possible using scripts? Probably not.
Solution 3: Melee causes debuffs which discourage retreating, such as TU drain.
Possible using scripts? Only if there's a way to make a miss cause debuffs, or melee is high-accuracy low-damage.
Problem: AI might still try to retreat with their tiny TUs.
Solution 4: Melee gives armor/resistances instead of CQB
Possible using scripts? Yes, as XCOMfiles shows you can have items give armor if they are in cerrtain slots.
Problem: Obviously players will swap to melee at end of turn. Oh yeah, and it's unrealistic.
Possible solution to problem: Make melee weapons big. Have armor adjustment only apply if they had the melee weapon equipped the entire turn using scripts.
Solution 5: 1 free melee attack per turn to buff hit-and-run.
Possible using scripts? Well it requires a melee attack trigger so maybe not.
Problem: AI might not use it.
Solution 6: No-scripts. Flashbangs, stealth, smoke, higher HP in general.
Problem: Limiting, generally doesn't hold in the lategame.
72
The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 1.3: Sanity Check
« on: April 07, 2020, 05:04:37 am »
I don't know of any mod that comes with its own statstrings. They probably should, as they help you get much more attached. But they don't, and it doesn't really make sense for someone else to make a thread for unofficial statstrings.
73
Offtopic / Re: What happened to Blizzard?
« on: April 06, 2020, 03:46:23 am »
I like roguelikes and roguelites but not ARPGs. Your health regens in ARPGs and you are super mobile so if you die it's because you didn't teleport out fast enough and didn't grind enough, i.e. you're lazy not bad. That's a massive gameplay difference.
74
The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 1.3: Sanity Check
« on: April 05, 2020, 11:57:35 pm »
@Mathel
Rifles according to items_XCOMFILES.rul.
@Alex_D
Totally possible, just change the appropriate string in Language/en-us.yml. You can ctrl-f for the current text. You will see that it's duplicated. Change on of those values.
Rifles according to items_XCOMFILES.rul.
@Alex_D
Totally possible, just change the appropriate string in Language/en-us.yml. You can ctrl-f for the current text. You will see that it's duplicated. Change on of those values.
75
The X-Com Files / Re: The X-Com Files - 1.3: Sanity Check
« on: April 05, 2020, 04:36:16 am »
XCOMfiles is considered a different "game" / master mod just like TFTD is a different game. Making a version for XCOMfiles as simple as changing the master. But while you're at it you should probably customize the stat strings because desirable stat strings are very different in this game.