Author Topic: Re: The X-Com Files - 3.5: Whispers In The Dark  (Read 2445910 times)

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2730 on: August 14, 2019, 03:43:11 pm »
Just going through this now - the mod enforces storage limits and limits craft capacity. You've overriden both - why, just to enforce this bug? Also, your mudranger fuel is at...700%? Just to be clear, what other modifications have you added to the base mod?

EDIT:
Even with all items added to the mudranger, the only lag i get is in the loadout screen, and even then it's not much. Absolutley no lag/stuttering on the battlescape. I'd like to add that this an utterly excessive amount of items we're talking about here. Again, this is an issue with OXC/OXCE, not with the mod itself.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2019, 03:57:36 pm by krautbernd »

Offline mercy

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 341
    • View Profile
Re: Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2731 on: August 14, 2019, 07:06:34 pm »
Solarius's idea of a "Man in Black"-car that only takes two or four agents is brilliant!! That feature made me instantly like this mod, despite the disappointing and boring early beginning that promised the dry feeling of a cold war era spy story. But things sped up nicely. The van is also excellent choice, as is the helicopter and any airborne solutions.

However, I'm a game developer and as I'm not smoking any weed or taking any pills / drugs as masses of peeps do in the US habitually as easily as they are breathing air, I need frequent emotional UPs or highs to energize my willingness to do hard work, which only enhanced drama provides. I wanted multiple squads that is normally transported by a small "motorized WW2 column".  This style is even more fun, when lots of rookies are swooping down on the enemy and only using looted weaponry!

This creates a super-mayhem situation with massive carnage. Lots of corpses, screaming and gloriously fun Mass Panic in case of responding to a Beach Mission with 40 rookies in swim suits, where at least 7-8 of my agents are screaming and running around in panic at each turn begin - as the enemy begins to decimate them.


Just going through this now - the mod enforces storage limits and limits craft capacity. You've overriden both - why, just to enforce this bug? Also, your mudranger fuel is at...700%? Just to be clear, what other modifications have you added to the base mod?

EDIT:
Even with all items added to the mudranger, the only lag i get is in the loadout screen, and even then it's not much. Absolutley no lag/stuttering on the battlescape. I'd like to add that this an utterly excessive amount of items we're talking about here. Again, this is an issue with OXC/OXCE, not with the mod itself.
Any inventory limits - especially in party based RPGs is a bad design choice, despite whining about "realism": humans evolved  to hoard loot and its maximal fun. If a customer buys a game that is limited in many ways to make the fruit sour, - its like finding hair in a beautiful and super-tasty birthday cake - where is the fun? Where is the release of stress?  Limits like this only create more stress in the player, where the player already collected more than enough stress at the workplace to destroy human health.  Advancing age shows this clearly.  Drama situations are fun to a limit and young players are ignorantly able to soak in a lot more stress ==> to their detriment. As later turns out!

The mudranger original range is a joke: its completely unplayable, unless some target pops up right beside the base, simply a bad design choice. Paying customers would have already requested range-increase if this "game" was sold on Steam.  I couldn't get to any location with it. Even with the 'Upgrayedd' Mudranger. This way at least I have a troops transporter that works in early game: clear intuitive design choice that works.

Mentioned slowdown:
My CPU 10 year old. That might be, why it is lagging on not super-optimized code.
Of course its the main engine that has some room left for optimization: the mod only defines rules. 
« Last Edit: August 14, 2019, 07:29:51 pm by mercy »

Offline SparroHawc

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2732 on: August 14, 2019, 11:45:47 pm »
Whether or not you feel it detracts from the game, the limitations exist for a reason - and only by breaking those limitations were you able to get the game to slow down.  Heck, the original X-Com straight-up restricted you to 80 items total for any encounter.  I don't think anyone's going to look very hard at fixing this - least of all Scorch.

That said, you might try posting in the OXC / OXCE programmer sections specifically if you found inefficient code.  Or if you're feeling really generous, you could make a fix yourself and submit a pull request.

Offline TheCurse

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2733 on: August 15, 2019, 12:52:08 am »
well apart from that ridiculous abuse, the mudranger range is unusably low, airborne version too.
why bother to get a transport (no matter how large) if you can use it for 2% of the missions...

what´d be cool though, a range indicator (if limit < earth circumference).
i *HATE* it to send a heli to a mission to have it turn around on low fuel on literally the last 10 pixels. happens way too often, no matter how good i guess...

Offline Meridian

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 9089
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2734 on: August 15, 2019, 01:07:00 am »
what´d be cool though, a range indicator (if limit < earth circumference).
i *HATE* it to send a heli to a mission to have it turn around on low fuel on literally the last 10 pixels. happens way too often, no matter how good i guess...

there is a range indicator already... each time a craft takes off from the base you can see how far it can get... attached screenshot of how far a mudranger can go for example

Offline Jwinsler

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2735 on: August 15, 2019, 01:52:04 am »
there is a range indicator already... each time a craft takes off from the base you can see how far it can get... attached screenshot of how far a mudranger can go for example

How do I enable this?

Offline Meridian

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 9089
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2736 on: August 15, 2019, 01:59:50 am »
How do I enable this?

it's always enabled

Offline TheCurse

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 334
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2737 on: August 15, 2019, 03:50:40 am »
hm, kinda not sure if i remember ever seeing it. Maybe once as i tried out the mudrangers, something does ring a bell...
Doesn't seem to work from the intercept menu of missions / popups though.
Would be awesome to have a check there, e.g. "its too far away for the selected vehicle" or something like that.
Dunno how the majority of people is launching, but ~100% of the time i use the intercept menu on mission site / popups.

Offline SparroHawc

  • Sergeant
  • **
  • Posts: 10
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2738 on: August 15, 2019, 04:21:16 am »
hm, kinda not sure if i remember ever seeing it. Maybe once as i tried out the mudrangers, something does ring a bell...
Doesn't seem to work from the intercept menu of missions / popups though.
Would be awesome to have a check there, e.g. "its too far away for the selected vehicle" or something like that.
Dunno how the majority of people is launching, but ~100% of the time i use the intercept menu on mission site / popups.

I always click on the base, pick the vehicle I want, then click on the target.  That way I can 1) see if the vehicle is in range, and 2) I never pick the wrong base.

I suspect others have the same experience.

Definitely agree that there should be a warning...  You may want to bring it up in the OXC suggestions or OXCE forum.  Seems the sort of thing that should be built into the engine.

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2739 on: August 15, 2019, 02:06:21 pm »
Solarius, would you mind rising the mission despawn time for terror missions, or across the whole board? In a first for me, I recently had a terror mission despawn which my skymarshall couldn't reach despite deploying derictly after the site popped up. I don't mind taking on every terro mission even it means injured or killed agents, but at least give us the chance to reach it.

Offline Bobit

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2740 on: August 15, 2019, 04:08:24 pm »
Krautbend mission despawn times are random so in order to do that he would have to make the average like double the desired minimum.

Mission despawns mid-flight do really annoy me though, I spend all this time setting up for no fight at all. Sometimes I'll send an empty skyranger to find out if I should even bother then reload the save. If I had a mod mission despawns would be like a week.

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2741 on: August 15, 2019, 05:59:08 pm »
Krautbend mission despawn times are random so in order to do that he would have to make the average like double the desired minimum.

Mission despawns mid-flight do really annoy me though, I spend all this time setting up for no fight at all. Sometimes I'll send an empty skyranger to find out if I should even bother then reload the save. If I had a mod mission despawns would be like a week.
Code: [Select]
alienDeployments -> duration
[min, max] -- Minimum and maximum duration of this mission on the Geoscape (in hours).

Unless i'm looking at the wrong missions, terror sites currently have a lower bound of 4 hours, which seems a bit unfair.

Offline Bobit

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 186
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2742 on: August 15, 2019, 08:31:46 pm »
Hm. I coulda sworn...

Offline justaround

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 98
    • View Profile
Re: Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2743 on: August 15, 2019, 08:40:42 pm »
...which brings us full circle - again. Going by that argument, you should also get full loot when you destroy the UFO
No, when the UFO is destroyed, it's understandable some of it may be not recoverable. Items of crewmember stashed inside the UFO however seem less befitting that logic.

after all, those aliens "were killed by air defences I spent money on and built exactly so they can kill aliens" too, weren't they? See why this doesn't add up? No, you don't get penalized - you're simply fighting less aliens.
Yes, we go full circle as I already pointed out - by denying one loot (or any equivalent) together with the enemy carrying it, it's like a penalty for the player for whom the live alien who'd carry those items wouldn't pose a threat worth denying oneself the loot.

And again, how is this supposed to work in-game?
Random number of alien resources is added to the after-mission loot pool, defined as some of the recovered scrap from where UFO sustained damage, spewing random bits due to AA defence impacts/explosions.

Do the surviving aliens drag their dead comrades out of the departing UFO into your hangar bays just so you don't have to feel penalized? I don't think so. This is simply a ridiculous idea you're trying to float, and implementing it would lead to even more inconsistencies.
You ask a question, then make your own silly answer and then you use that strawman to supposedly debunk my take on it. Spare me that - I understand you may not like or agree with it, but please muster some intellectual honesty. Strawmanning through certainly won't lead us anywhere good.

That's not my logic - i don't think you should be able to do that - but it's a logical extension of what you're proposing.
Then your logic is flawed, given how much easier it was to find an explanation far more sensible than your corpse-dragging idea.

How else are you supposed to be able to claim those bodies&equipment? Either the aliens take time and drag them out of the departing UFO, or you recover them from the UFO that's still sitting above your base - unmanned and defenseless - but somehow isn't part of the recovery.
Or it's not actual guns but some equivalent in resources.

Tell me, which of those options sounds less ridiculous to you?
Both have their flaws, which is why I provided a better one just now.

How about a third option - one that acutally makes sense - the missing aliens were killed & vaporized upon impact, destroying their bodies&equipment. Problem solved.
Which sounds passable but leads us back to the problem of penalty, while the above idea addresses that while still not being illogical.
 
Because it would utterly break the game balance, among other things.
Only if you'd do it wrong. At the point of the game, where the player is expected to also be able to recover UFOs, some materials and items from damaged invasion craft wouldn't break the game's balance.

I explicitly said that 'not benefitting from base attacks' was MY opinion. That has nothing to to with your proposition. Stop trying to redirect the argument.
I am not redirecting argument, I point out that your supposed opinion is your opinion, but it's not a premise I agree on and so I won't be basing my claims on it. You can approach it however you want but the fact is there are players who don't mind base defence due to potential loot from invading parties they can acquire.

I've pointed out multiple times why your idea makes no sense,
Which I heard the first time and addressed.

and you have yet to adress the most glaring shortcomings of what you're proposing.
As I did.

I'm not the one having no arguments.
I understand you disagree with my claims but that doesn't change my stance.

You're on thin ice right now, i'd advise you take a step back and actually look at what your proposition would entail.
Thin ice how? What position you are to issue such kind of warnings/threats? Again, you may disagree, but I would recommend to limit high-and-mighty attitude. No matter if my idea is agreeable or not, I do not reach for fallacies, I do not attempt to ridicule you and I certainly do not issue warning nor threats and I expect the same from you on a public forum. If you cannot do so, maybe it would be beneficial to listen to your advice about taking a step back. If this is to be about escalation, after all, we're both wasting our time.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2019, 08:48:15 pm by justaround »

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 1108
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2744 on: August 15, 2019, 09:31:23 pm »
So, let me sum this up - in order to not have to adress the glaring issue of aliens dragging their dead comrades into your base, your proposal is that you should get 'some form of resources' to offset your perceived penalty? What kind of resources? And from where? From the vaporized parts of the UFO that took off? In that case you should get even more resources from supposedly destroyed UFOs if they apparently just rain down from the sky. If you recover a downed UFO you don't magically get the same amount of resources as from a landed UFO. Parts and bodies that were destroyed are lost. Why should this be handled any differently? If you destroy parts of the UFO and it's occupants you don't get that part of the loot.

Protip: It's not a strawn man argument if you have to go through the trouble to explain it away for your idea to work.

How does you proposed explanation make any more sense than not giving players resources for enemies that simply didn't spawn? Nobody is forcing you build base defences in the first place - if anything you're the one building a strawn man argument on being forced to endure this. You don't. Players that 'enjoy base defense mission' can simply refrain from building base defence structures or deactivate them when they get attacked. You are not being penalized by being forced to fight less enemies since nobody forces you to fight less enemies. Turn your proposal around, players might not want to be rewarded for enemies they didn't fight and because your idea is simply ridiculous and doesn't make sense in-game. What about them?

As for you calling me out on 'perceived threats' - maybe actually adress my arguments instead pretending they don't exist? People don't take too kindly to that.

And my warning was exactly that - a warning. Not a threat. I told you to take a step back and actually look at what your proposal would entail. Because as far as i can tell it get's more complicated the closer you look at it. You've gone from 'i want to have the loot of the enemies i didn't fight' to 'i need to create a separate loot table for the parts of the UFO i just blew up'. It's not going to end there. And you need to actually find a way to implement this - as far as i can tell this is beyond the scope of XCF. You'd need to add that functionality to OXCE.

We can continue this if you want, and will continue to point out why your idea is inherently flawed, inconsistent and not worth the effort to implement.

Instead I'd suggest you simply deactivate the feature instead. Problem solved.
« Last Edit: August 15, 2019, 09:59:34 pm by krautbernd »