Re: [MAIN] XPiratez - N10 24-Nov-2024 Aurora's Dawn

[Dioxine]

Yeah the Pedia will be fully updated once this thing is properly balanced and debugged. For now, any input is welcome.

[legionof1]

On the input front my initial thoughts are:

1. Have gunbutt strikes override snap as the reaction action at 1 square. I mentioned this on the wish-list thread. Tangentially melee weapon should also override snap actions in a dual wield situation at 1 square(i don't dual wield, i dont know what it does now). Reacting with an actual melee attack, if available, in melee seems logical for most trained combatants.

2. Remove the shoot downward result from a failed CQC check. Certain guns, particularly high end automatics can drill through terrain very quickly. Pulling a cartoony shoot the floor out from under yourself moment isn't funny for very long.       

[ohartenstein23]

I agree, having a smarter choice of whether the reaction is melee or snap would be nice, but configuring this is a bit more difficult; I didn't look at the reactions code at all for CQB.  I think this would also require allowing melee reactions to turn 45 degrees instead of only targeting the tile directly in front, and allowing a melee defender to turn around and react when shot in the back.

The shoot downwards result is necessary as a default option; it's the only tile I can 100% guarantee to be there in every situation, and thus is the fallback when the tile chosen from the roll isn't valid for a shot.

[Ethereal_Medic]

The shoot downwards result is necessary as a default option; it's the only tile I can 100% guarantee to be there in every situation.

Why not pick the tile above? A Tile above is guarantee 100% of the time as well.

[Meridian]

Why not pick the tile above? A Tile above is guarantee 100% of the time as well.

It's not... if you're on the top level already.

[ivandogovich]

A funny thing happened the other day at the Whorehouse.  In a Save a Sister mission in a brand new campaign, I ran a girl into the kitchen and stood by the door.  On the enemy turn a B-Boy came to the entry a took a couple shots from 1 tile and one missed hitting the floor tile in the entry, destroying it.  The B-Boy ended up on the floor below in the dungeons and it provided a really quick way to try to get to the Castaway captive.  I lost the mission, but found the whole scenario interesting.

Overall, I'm finding the CqC check failures and horribly random shots are happening far too frequently.  Rather than have it as an almost constant, I'd like to have it occasional.  Even if it reduced by 50% from where things currently are, it would feel more balanced than it is right now.

[Meridian]

Rather than have it as an almost constant, I'd like to have it occasional.

This... 5%... at most.

[ivandogovich]

This... 5%... at most.

Granted, I haven't played out hours of battles with this (nor do I have hundreds of statistical data points).  At best I have anecdotal impressions.

I have played a base defense and had 2 rounds of confrontation with a Spartan Scout in the Air Vents.  I'd estimate that 8-12 shots were traded on each side, and cqc failures resulted  in 75% of those causing random shots.

I restarted a new campaign last night and fought one distress call.  With enemies storming my air bus, I had some of their shots hit, and some appear to miss and hit the door jam.  I assumed these were cqc failures on their part.  Adversaries were neophyte and church matron.    In the Save a Sister mission, my confrontation with the B-boy resulted in 2 rounds of combat.  I'd guess 8 shot traded on both sides.  3-4 were cqc misses.

It may be confirmation bias, or extreme outlier cases, but this feels higher than 5% random chance of missing if you are 1 tile adjacent.   I thought I'd share my impressions to add to feedback that others are sharing as well. 

As it stands, I think players are moving to new tactics to compensate for the current cqc balance.  I know I did in the couple hours I've been able to test this.  More players are inclined to shoot from 2 tiles away, than from point blank now.  This also is my impression.

[Meridian]

It may be confirmation bias, or extreme outlier cases, but this feels higher than 5% random chance of missing if you are 1 tile adjacent.

No no, I just wanted to say I agree with you and it should be changed to only occasional (5% or less, in my opinion).
At the moment it is much more than 5%.

[Yankes]

btw how game will behave if you will shoot tile behind enemy?

[ohartenstein23]

Still runs the CQB check, it happens if an enemy is within 1 tile of the firing unit, regardless of whether or not that enemy is the target.

[Foxhound634]

I totally agree about RSSwizard's sentiment of smoke in this post:

https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,3626.msg81782.html#msg81782

Could we have the smoke gfx that he attached, made into a toggle in the options menu, instead of doing it manually?

[ohartenstein23]

There are alternate smoke mods out there, if you ask RSSwizard he could probably bundle it up for you. Mods are better than hardcoded options for things like this.

[Dioxine]

I don't want no crappy static smoke in my mod, toggle or no, but anyone can mod the mod

[sinisteragent]

I'm getting an odd problem in the new version. Everything seems to play okay, but a lot of the flavour text (mission briefings, menu items, alien containment, country names (except pirate straits), etc) is reverting to the original xcom text. I've installed it the same way I always have in the past, and tried reinstalling everything. I'm guessing I missed something?