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 - zee_ra

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15
31
OXCE Support / Re: Blast radius calculations in OXCE
« on: December 05, 2023, 04:38:55 am »
Best is simply show code how its done:
Code: [Select]

int radius = 0;

if (_damageType.FixRadius == -1)
{
radius = getPowerBonus(attack) * _damageType.RadiusEffectiveness;
if (_damageType.FireBlastCalc)
{
radius += 1;
}
// cap the formula to 11
if (radius > 11)
{
radius = 11;
}
if (radius <= 0)
{
radius = 1;
}
}
else
{
// unless a blast radius is actually defined.
radius = _damageType.FixRadius;
}

return radius;


So, basically, setting up a FixRadius to 19 results in the largest possible blast radius in the game?

Sometimes, the animations (e.g. with Mummy Matriarchs) gives me an impression that the blast radius is much larger than mere 11 cells.


32
Open Feedback / Re: Sectopods - Can't be Psionicly captured?
« on: December 05, 2023, 04:33:24 am »
Oops, I thought I was responding in the XCF subsection... But I think this still works for vanilla anyway. IMO would fit with how Ethereals operate.

Indeed!  I concur on that perspective.

I personally think if your psionic stats are at 120/120, then you can perform all sorts of absurd things. Maybe not "anything", but a lot.

With Helix Psion and Sectoid Legacy, even greater miracles are possible.  :wink:

Sorry, by XCOM2 do you mean TFTD? Or the nuCom? Because I don't really understand what feature you mean. Why would an enemy unit become uncapturable because you MCed it?

I mean specifically the original TFTD.  I recall having a trouble with capturing a Lobsterman Navigator, who was hidden in the center colony struct, very hard to access without destroying Zrbite planted nearby.  I was accomplishing those colony missions by MC-capturing most aliens, including the Lobsterman Navigator.  It turned out that I was unable to research that specific alien after finishing the missions, until I stopped to MC-capture it.  Clearly, this implies that an explicit mechanic in the game against researching those aliens which were MC-controlled at least once during the tactical mission.

I wonder, if that specific mechanic was a deliberate decision.  If so, how does it correspond to the corresponding design decision in XCF?

33
Brutal AI / Re: [SOURCEMOD] Brutal-OXCE 7.11.0
« on: December 05, 2023, 04:26:11 am »
What is "Realistic accuracy and cover system"?

I understand vanilla already accounts for cover in the way that if part of the target is covered and shot hits the cover it does not hit the target. Sure this can be calculated and displayed to user for convenience but what exactly is changed?

Actually, that is a rather interesting question.  I think, vanilla already accounts for voxel shapes on the way.  Is the model different in this release of the engine?  If so, how it is different?

34
The X-Com Files / Re: Firearms vs. heavy armor
« on: December 05, 2023, 03:21:46 am »
Same here. Sniper weapons triple-dip damage enchancements (armor effectiveness, 50-200 damage, power scaling to stats), which is the most of any weapon. Worse, they retain these improvements for snap/auto shots as well. If only it were possible to truly customise shooting modes...

In my play-testing, changing the randomness to 50-150 and increasing armor resistance had been more than sufficient.

Actually, kinetic armor resistance of 75 on heavy suits behaves very nicely, and consistently with expectations about these suits.  In fact, that is a resistance on heavy TT tactical suit, so it's a very justifiable value for heavier suits (like Power Suit, Shock Armor, and Juggernaut Suit).  Also, for tanks as well.


35
The X-Com Files / Re: Firearms vs. heavy armor
« on: December 05, 2023, 03:16:28 am »
Same here. Sniper weapons triple-dip damage enchancements (armor effectiveness, 50-200 damage, power scaling to stats), which is the most of any weapon. Worse, they retain these improvements for snap/auto shots as well. If only it were possible to truly customise shooting modes...

Well, heavies do have a heavier (heh) weight of fire, so might be better at very short ranges.

In my really old modmod, I gave heavies more autoshots, better auto accuracy and some went from 'super-machine-guns' to 'cannons', i.e. they got a small AoE attack. Don't know if that'd be enough now.

Actually, it may be possible to change damage based on fire mode.  Check out the discussion at https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,9293.0.html.  I am currently trying to implement a battery system for laser and potentially warp weapons in XCF through my submod.  If we figure out how to customize individual shots, and especially individual shot bonuses, we'll have a lot more consistency, uniformity and realism in the mod.

Alternatively, we might as well prohibit anything but an aimed shot for sniper rifles.  Only super-smart rifles and weapons would be allowed a snap shot with accuracy bonus.  Say, something like advanced rocket launcher.  Smart sniper rifle.  Then, we might have a smart sniper rifle with double snapshot, quadruple auto shot, all retaining an extra accuracy bonus, but having a distance dropoff limitation.  Also, such device would require e.g. 1 unit of optronics.

What are your thoughts about this?

36
The X-Com Files / Re: Firearms vs. heavy armor
« on: December 04, 2023, 06:56:36 pm »
The rifle in question has a base damage of 25.  It's woefully insufficient to pierce any reasonable hole in a decent armor.  The reason behind its ability to pierce vehicle armor could be explained perhaps by the fact that it may target a fuel tank, etc..  In general, a good design (a more tank-like) of a vehicle should preclude such possibility, and thus M.A.G.M.A. tank should be impervious to the Black-Ops sniper rifles, or even assault cannons.  Even a M.A.G.M.A. heavy cannon should find it challenging to make a real damage to a M.A.G.M.A. tank.

The current state of affairs is problematic, because in practice a pretty low-power weapon could destroy tank-level targets.  The shock troopers are like fallout-2 walking tanks.


Considering the issue of tanks further.  A nice gauges to look against is the RPG and recoilless rifle.  Those should pierce both armored cars and tanks.  Now, we go slightly down.  We have a heavy sniper rifle and also M82 Barrett.  Should those pierce tanks?  No.  Should they pierce armored cars?  I think, the answer should be that in general such piercing should not be too consistent with common AP bullets, but consistent with TT AP bullets.  So, we have basically the following desiderata for armored car and tank resistances:

damage
power
effect against
armored cars
effect against
tanks
40inconsistent piercing
no frontal piercing
no piercing
70consistent piercingno piercing
100consistent piercinginconsistent piercing
no frontal piercing
140demolitionconsistent piercing
160demolitionconsistent piercing
200demolitiondemolition

This table is for kinetic and HE values.  The energy weapons may have an extra edge, even at the same numerical power values as their kinetic and HE counterparts.

I think, mostly only the human weapons need adjustments, and for them the RandomType should be consistently set to 2.  With energy weapons, we should have a wider randomness interval, and setting it to 1, 6, or 7 would be appropriate.  This way, there's no need to revise the relative power levels of any weapons, and the energy weapons still have a meaningful edge.

37
The X-Com Files / Re: Firearms vs. heavy armor
« on: December 04, 2023, 06:34:34 pm »

I am not enthusiastic about going through all weapons in the mod - not because I don't like the work itself, but because I'm not sure what approximation would be "best". I'll ask other modders.

It should be possible to concoct a script that would go over the definitions and make a decision based on the numerical power value and damage type, whether to set ToTile to a lower value.  A lower-power laser may e.g. have a higher coefficient, but a lower-power kinetic weapon would have a lower one.  A function is pretty simple: if below 40, then the weapon is low-power.  If above, then mid-power, and if above 70 or so, then high-power.  The ToTile damage could thus be accordingly 0.1 for low power, 0.15 for mid-power, and 0.25 for high-power.  A slightly different set of numbers may be used, as desired by the collective modders' consensus.

38
The X-Com Files / Re: Firearms vs. heavy armor
« on: December 04, 2023, 06:29:01 pm »
This is a nice breakdown of the problem, and I really appreciate it, but I'm missing the most important info: what exactly is wrong with the current state? You imply that it's bad that "using default bullets could demolish in 2-3 auto bursts an enemy wearing Power Suit", but I honestly can't see why. These rifles can pierce a hole in an armoured vehicle, so why not a human armour? Even if it's made of super alloys.
I'm just unsure if the current model is wrong. (And there are Chuckebaby's and Stone Lake's arguments to consider as well.)

I am not enthusiastic about going through all weapons in the mod - not because I don't like the work itself, but because I'm not sure what approximation would be "best". I'll ask other modders.

The rifle in question has a base damage of 25.  It's woefully insufficient to pierce any reasonable hole in a decent armor.  The reason behind its ability to pierce vehicle armor could be explained perhaps by the fact that it may target a fuel tank, etc..  In general, a good design (a more tank-like) of a vehicle should preclude such possibility, and thus M.A.G.M.A. tank should be impervious to the Black-Ops sniper rifles, or even assault cannons.  Even a M.A.G.M.A. heavy cannon should find it challenging to make a real damage to a M.A.G.M.A. tank.

The current state of affairs is problematic, because in practice a pretty low-power weapon could destroy tank-level targets.  The shock troopers are like fallout-2 walking tanks.

One change to the definitions that I tried, which is also quite unobtrusive, is to change the damage spread to 50-150%, by using RandomType: 2.

I also experimented with changing ArmorEffectiveness of small arms, but the problem that I encountered was that commando / supersoldier type of target become pratically impervious to these smaller sniper weapons.  Since those are not full-body-enclosure type of armors, they should be vulnerable to headshots, and especially to sniper fire.  So, in general thus it makes more sense to give the better resistance to power armors than to increase any armor inefficiency for smaller weapons.

Now, the only caveat with setting higher kinetic resistance on power suits is the issue of their susceptibility to gauss weapons fire.  There are two possible approaches here.  On the on hand, Gauss weapons might have higher armor penetration, by having e.g. ArmorEffectiveness: 0.75.  On the other hand, the RandomType: 7 looks like being more than enough to defeat any power suit, especially if it's a heavy gauss or a gauss sniper rifle.  Given that power suits are made of TT, I think the best approach would be to rely on a RandomType with gauss weapons that gives them higher damage potential, and to increase the suit's kinetic resistance to the value of e.g. 0.8 or 0.85.

I also found that changing melee weapons by setting ArmorEffectiveness: 2.0 and RandomType: 2 works very well.  They do not prevent a truly skilled supersoldier from inflicting very serious damage, while prevent the situations that look very unreal (like noobs piercing through TT tactical suit with an axe).


39
OXCE Suggestions DONE / Re: [DONE][Suggestion] Battery-powered weapons
« on: December 04, 2023, 06:11:58 pm »
Added.

Example:

Code: [Select]
items:
  - type: STR_LASGUN
    compatibleAmmo: [STR_LASGUN_CLIP]
    confAimed:
      spendPerShot: 4        # 4x battery consumption for 2x power
      name: STR_BIG_BOOM
    confSnap:
      name: STR_SMALL_BOOM
    tags:
      BPL_AIMED_2X_POWER: 1  # custom script

"onFiring" script is not easy, and not very well definable either.
I've added bullet consumption via ruleset; tested only on player-controlled units so far.

Help testing on AI would be appreciated.

The second part can be solved via standard "hitUnit" script.
Example:

Code: [Select]
# Battery Powered Lasgun script by Meridian
extended:
  tags:
    RuleItem:
      BPL_AIMED_2X_POWER: int

  scripts:
    hitUnit:
      - offset: 0.1
        code: |
          var int temp;
          if eq battle_action battle_action_aimshoot;
            weapon_item.getTag temp Tag.BPL_AIMED_2X_POWER;
            if neq temp 0;
              # debug_log "hitUnit: yo, double up!";
              mul power 2;
            end;
          end;
          return power part side;


Full sample mod is attached.

Please allow me to consider another question.  What if I need to have a weapon that uses this type of battery munitions, but also confers a power bonus.  At the same time, I would like to have a weapon that also uses the same type of battery munitions, but without power bonus.  A use case may be a sniper rifle and a machine gun.  How could I encode this distinction in the weapon definitions?

Would it work, if I simply encode the powerBonus with a weapon itself, rather than munitions?

Also, is there a way to change completely the definition of a shot?  Could I use the same battery for laser and warp or EMP cannons?  How would it be best to approach this task?  Should I encode the damage types with the weapon itself through damageAlter?  What should I indicate in the battery definition?  Would it work if I set no damageType and power with battery, but would set those with a weapon?

40
OXCE Suggestions DONE / Re: [DONE][Suggestion] Battery-powered weapons
« on: December 04, 2023, 06:51:20 am »
@Meridian,

Apparently, there's a small omission in documentation.  The spendPerShot property is not documented under the online nightly ruleset reference.

41
OXCE Suggestions DONE / Re: [DONE][Suggestion] Battery-powered weapons
« on: December 04, 2023, 06:33:29 am »
Added.

Example:

Code: [Select]
items:
  - type: STR_LASGUN
    compatibleAmmo: [STR_LASGUN_CLIP]
    confAimed:
      spendPerShot: 4        # 4x battery consumption for 2x power
      name: STR_BIG_BOOM
    confSnap:
      name: STR_SMALL_BOOM
    tags:
      BPL_AIMED_2X_POWER: 1  # custom script

"onFiring" script is not easy, and not very well definable either.
I've added bullet consumption via ruleset; tested only on player-controlled units so far.

Help testing on AI would be appreciated.

The second part can be solved via standard "hitUnit" script.
Example:

Code: [Select]
# Battery Powered Lasgun script by Meridian
extended:
  tags:
    RuleItem:
      BPL_AIMED_2X_POWER: int

  scripts:
    hitUnit:
      - offset: 0.1
        code: |
          var int temp;
          if eq battle_action battle_action_aimshoot;
            weapon_item.getTag temp Tag.BPL_AIMED_2X_POWER;
            if neq temp 0;
              # debug_log "hitUnit: yo, double up!";
              mul power 2;
            end;
          end;
          return power part side;


Full sample mod is attached.

@Meridian,

I would like to inquire, if scripts are fully interpreted?  Is it sufficient to simply insert script text somewhere under a specific YAML node path?

42
Open Feedback / Re: Sectopods - Can't be Psionicly captured?
« on: December 04, 2023, 06:29:28 am »
Yes, they should be capturable like almost any unit. Sectopods aren't true robots, they're more like cyborgs (although their brains are artificial and probably not carbon based).

That is a nice perspective on the nature of sectopods.  While not explicitly stated in XCF (as far as I recall ...), the vibe is certainly somewhere in that realm.

I would like to consider the issue of agents' psionic powers.  Should it be usable to capture any electronics, at sufficient power?  I assume, that at 120/120 (PST/PSK), a probability to accomplish that should be non-negligible.  What do you think?

Also, what does the psi capture setting affect specifically?  Would disabling it return a behavior from XCOM2, where aliens upon which MC was used had been rendered un-capturable for research purposes?  Is there a way to turn on a similar behavior in XCF?



43
Open Feedback / Re: Sectopods - Can't be Psionicly captured?
« on: November 28, 2023, 10:30:16 am »
Don't know engine-wise, but mod-wise OG Sectopods have 'capturable: false' and XCF Sectopods default to true. MiB Sectopods even explicitly have 'capturable: true'.

Thank you for sharing this.

I think there's a good rationale for this approach: the sectopods are controllable through psi-link.

44
Open Feedback / Re: Sectopods - Can't be Psionicly captured?
« on: November 28, 2023, 09:16:10 am »
yes

The sectopods are capturable with 150 psi strength and skill in XCF-3.1.  Is that still really intended (engine-wise rather than mod-wise)?

45
The X-Com Files / Re: Bugs, crashes, typos & bad taste
« on: November 20, 2023, 09:03:53 pm »
in the catacombs I found 1x Zombie,

Bug hunt turn on was on the 80th turn,

I went there totally blind with a Van of four agents,

as the gate is closed /needed to blow it up/

I was snipping first like for 40 turns and then went in,

and to my surprise then had a 40 turn dance with the queen...and 2x Knights

good thing is that its 30 penalty to not do it...so I will not do it again

If there's no real tactical challenge, then BAI with auto-combat works OK in such circumstances.  With a tactical challenge present (= real possibility of friendly casualties), it may be less optimal.

Pages: 1 2 [3] 4 5 ... 15