aliens

Author Topic: The X-Com Files - 1.5.1: Around The World  (Read 631307 times)

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 9842
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2820 on: September 03, 2019, 11:12:25 am »
Hi guys! Sorry for the delay, I am on holidays and spend more time on the beach than at the PC. (No Osiron found yet.)

So, the space missions are coming and UAC weapons will be in great demand? ;)

Yes! Though this particular one is endgame, so I expect UAC will be outdated.

Does this have an Ufopaedia article? This mechanic should have one, as well as the hunter-killer ufos if they don't already.

I thought the player didn't need this info as there is no reason to suspect otherwise. But then again, this is a mod to a game which didn't have this mechanics, so there is a reason to suspect otherwise.
I'll add it.

Moon missions, yay! To be fair, I cheat and I snoop the Github directory from time to time.

That's no cheating, that's staying on the bleeding edge of development. :)

(...) arc completed, or will it be a few random missions since it's kind of a joke arc? What about the ghost-busters one?

These guys are intended to be a serious arc. These are its humble beginnings.
Ghostbusters will hopefully happen too, but they're shelved at the moment. It's a big thing.

Guys! If we have Hyperwave decoder, we no longer need any of radar systems???

That's right.

@Solarius: maybe you can introduce a 1000-item limit for all craft? for people who don't know when to stop...

Yes, you're right. I did just that.

It would be interesting if the sponsor countries somehow competed among themselves for dossiers and other materials obtained by our organization.
For example, if we transferred the extracted artifacts to America, then, on the basis of this, it slightly increased our funding. Or sent some gifts (armor, weapons, ammunition, etc.). At the same time, for example, China, which also claimed these artifacts, but did not receive them, reduced its contribution.
In general, I would like to somehow reflect the more active relations between countries among themselves and countries with our organization.

Interesting musings, but completely out of scope of this engine. Wait on OpenApoc, maybe the devs will be crazy enough to listen. ;)
(This also applies to the following posts on this topic, with examples from SparrowHawc etc.)

By the way, I did not know that points are also awarded for research ... Are these the same points that are awarded for successfully performed operations, are calculated at the end of each month and make up the success rating of our project or something else?
About the points for research somewhere said in the game itself, did I miss something?

AFAIK there are two kinds of points: region-specific (which you see on graphs) and general. Research gives the latter.

Krautbernd's explanation is correct, though I can't really wrap my head around his system of per-country researches. XD (As you'd still need new code to assign points to a specific region.)

I've found them after many and many clinic missions (don't know how much exactly)... It seems, scripts of ver. 0.9.9e work incorrectly. I've interrogated all types of hybrids, researched all techs, which depend from them, done all types of missions, but still hybrids' base haven't appeared. Same shit with Syndicate's missions: now it is July of 2000, and there were NO Syndicate's missions since early 1999.

I'll ask Finnik to double check, I am not that familiar with the ADVENT stuff, as it's all his work - I only reviewed it.
But regarding the Syndicate: I've been too stingy with access to them. Will be improved in the future. This will also help with their weapons' availability.

Another thing I've found wierd is the UAC corporation in general, compared to MAGMA and Blackops Industries that is little interaction with UAC apart from finding out it exists. Like MAGMA gives you missions to do and tech trades and Blackops has the stuff with the Syndicate, but UAC has none of this. And you can't even get things like the UAC rifle without finding it first which is a little wierd.

I simply didn't have the time to develop them yet. But I have plans!

Offline Fiskun1

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 64
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2821 on: September 03, 2019, 03:35:06 pm »
Interesting musings, but completely out of scope of this engine. Wait on OpenApoc, maybe the devs will be crazy enough to listen. ;)
Thank!
Oh, I’m afraid that I’ll grow old and die before I can play OpenApoc ...  ;)

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 9842
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2822 on: September 05, 2019, 11:03:45 am »
Thank!
Oh, I’m afraid that I’ll grow old and die before I can play OpenApoc ...  ;)

I want to play it too. We can only pray. ;)

Offline justaround

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 84
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2823 on: September 05, 2019, 01:49:54 pm »
So you're still going on about this?
Why, yes. I don't have much time to regularly show up on the forum so there's a few days of pause between my replies for for the closest foreseeable future, but you yourself invited me to continue earlier, in one of your posts, earlier or the last, edited one. For the sake of being respectful I've decided to assume it was a genuine invitation, not an off-hand stab. Though I do sadly now suspect otherwise.

In case you haven't noticed it yet, the feature you're complaining about was implemented in OXCE, not in XCF. Which is why I pointed you to the OXCE subforum. I'm pointing you in that direction again, NOW.
Yes, and I started the whole thing expressing concerns in regards to application of the feature in XCF. Also, if it was implemented, it should be fine, shouldn't it be? But I am pretty sure you were claiming that there are mechanical issues earlier and just now?

Your proposal entails ignoring actual game mechanics (UFOs during base defence aren't recovered), pretending that fighting less aliens penalizes players because they get less loot, which they should - somehow - be entitled to as long as their base defences aren't strong enough to destroy incoming UFOs. Which makes absolutely no sense considering that having a strong enough defences doesn't net you anything.
A thing worthy of consideration in its own regard, though difference as stated I based on damaged but structurally still in relatively-one-piece UFO reasonably would yield some things as compared to what presumably seems to be completely disintegrated one.

Getting less loot and having to fight less aliens is simply a natural progression of that. You actually admitted as much by mentioning how shot down UFOs don't net as much loot, but only some parts.
Yes, and now I consider different ways such mechanics could be approached. Which may or may not be to liking of some but certainly shouldn't prompt emotional response.

Treating base defense missions along the same lines, with a full alien contingent being 100% loot, damaging the UFO reduces the numbers and the loot you get. Since you don't recover any UFO parts during base defence missions, fighting less aliens and accordingly recovering less total loot is the expected outcome.
Yes, it is expected but that doesn't make it better or reasonable on its own when the idea as presented earlier when you asked me to elaborate, touches upon what/how much loot one could should be getting in general from base defence as compared to current system.

This is also why you mentioning "Mechanics and balance considerations" is kind of amusing, since what you're requesting is the exact opposite of how the mechanics should work, and probably why they were implemented this way (apart from the fact that it's infitiley easier this way than the hare-brained scheme you're proposing).
Hardly a logical argument, "they were implemented this way because it's opposite of another way". Whether it's easier I am really not sure. It's certainly a simpler mechanics but that doesn't make it better - may be a taste of how much complexity one enjoys.

Apart from all of that what is keeping you from simply disabling that feature if you feel victimized and disenfranchised by it?
The fact that such feature of base defence doesn't bother me and I don't want it disabled. I'd like to ponder and discuss if different solutions regarding the loot could be used, though.
 
I'm saying you're acting like you're being forced to use this option because you are.
And I say that I am neither acting nor claiming I am forced. The fact I may appear somehow to you is one thing, but when I already stated earlier where I come from on this and you keep making assumptions about my intentions, it won't lead anywhere.

The logical and sane way to go about this would be not to act like you're entitled to loot you didn't fight for, but simply fight for the loot. Problem solved.
No, that's not how the logic of it works. If the idea is to also be able to acquire some loot from damage wrought upon aliens by base defences, "the problem" (not really that as much as openly pondering alternative, IMHO better way of handling it, despite your incessant approach toward it as if it'd be some attack) is lack of loot from destruction cause by said defences. Not using defences would be solution if my problem would be "there's not enough loot", but that's not the problem, the problem is that turrets completely obliterate potential loot when used, thus leading to loss for what should provide only net benefit (construction of functional defences). It's related to balance from the standpoint of using said defences. That's a difference.

As far as i can tell you have no idea what implementing these features would entail.
But you can't really tell now, can you, not in any way that'd be based on anything tangible. You just make assumptions based on your opinion on the idea and/or me, don't you?

I don't know how many times I have to point this out to you, but this is not a matter of a mod author "including" or "being interested" in such a feature. It's impossible to implement given the current game mechanics, as there is no way of parsing randomized 'resources' or the UFO damage state to the base defense battlescape mission, yet alone spawn items based on that. The implemented feature simply reduces the number of spawned enemies.
And I already addressed that, as you may also understand that I wasn't giving Solarius any hard time about it. It's you who wanted to continue this and addressed the idea on its own, as hypothetical as I already made it to be. Assuming you don't address it just to be a malcontent (or any other more vulgar word for a type of person who goes out of their way to berate people or things) or that you're not confused, it follows logically that you address me because you still want to discuss it on its own merit for some reason.

I remind you, in the very beginning of this exchange I literally simply explained what my was thinking behind it, then thanked for the input and moved on, not planning to continue with this thought/idea further:

Anyway, thanks for the answers, folks, and the suggestion.

 It's you who started turning it into personal attack and increasingly hostile, emotional opposition, like if you'd have something to prove. I am not responsible for whatever issues you may be suffering that have you act this way and if you plan to take things personally and then demand further explanations of the idea on my part, don't then also act annoyed that you get some. I am not an aggressor here nor did I wish to escalate.

Your initial request was for "bodies and loot" - something you're now denying.
A thing that could be done as simplification, but fluff wise wouldn't have to be, not as bodies on the battlefield, but stuff you can recover later, being stores 'off map'. I also, given that I actually didn't come to argue as you seem to assume, am willing to listen to feedback to refine it. Why, would you rather have me go with personal threats/warnings about how on thin ice you are and how you'll be in trouble/wet you'll end up if you won't start agreeing with me? I'll pass on that.

This is also kind of amusing, since you're blaming me for using that as a strawman argument.
No, not exactly that. The strawman is in the claim that I'd imagine aliens dragging the corpses out into the battefield when I did not suggest that. I also even explained to you what a strawman argument is on an example and you still seem to be not understanding what the logical fallacy is.

Pointing out obvious flaws in implementing that idea, you switched over to some - not further described - kind of 'resources', with no idea how to implement or balance this.
Why, do tell what items and bodies would be lost in hypothetical situation and, just for you, I can easily offer some examples with explanation what guides my decision to offer such and such loot. Also, bodies and items are resources, too.

The whole reason you're requesting this is because of a perceived penalty for the reduced number of aliens during base defence mission - because you should somehow get the same, or at least additional loot for aliens you didn't fight, disregarding that having strong enough defences don't net you any loot. Instead of simply accepting this as part of a natural progression - which you actually seem to be aware of, given your insight considering shot down UFOs - in your head this somehow amounts to players being 'rewarded less'.
With the exception of it being hardly any natural, it's extension of certain mechanics arbitrarily implemented on part of the developer. One which I very much understand you prefer, which is fine, but that's another matter altogether.

If I understand you correctly, you're actually trying to cite game mechanics and balance to defend your idea, when it actually breaks both - not only can't it be implemented using current mechanics,
Yes, but you ask me to explain how it would work, so as - as you also claim - the current mechanics doesn't support the idea, I explain - for your convenience, not mine - how and what would need adjustment so it could work.

it goes against established lore (as in, the UFO isn't recoverd after a sucessful base defence)
That's not lore, at all, neither established nor hinted at. That's purely balance/mechanical consideration, with no official fluff behind it. Fluff could be likely added but that'd be one added to explain the mechanics, not mechanics stemming from previously established lore.

and it would also break game balance, as rewards are normally tied to difficulty and risk - which are actually lowered by having less aliens during a base defence.
With the exception of how the player is encouraged normally to research and use progressively better equipment like rifles and armors to overome difficulty of the enconuters and decrease that risk while getting the loot. I apply it to base defences by logical extension.

And instead of actually acknowledging any of that, and taking my advice of simply disabling that option, you end up going down a rabbit hole to somehow make your proposal work in spite of all the inconsistencies and fallacies that it entails.
Name fallacies. Most of your... complaints now more than even arguments anymore are either stemming from how you'd like/expect the game to work, or personal preferences. As for rabbit hole, it's not me who seems be keen on biting into it and has a bone to pick, I present my thoughts and refine them in response to your continuous intent to contest them. As I'd like to assume here you don't just write this to have the last word.

I warned you about being on thin ice. I'm re-iterating that warning, because your feet are starting to get wet.
I tried to politely and diplomatically approach such unconstructive personal remarks in my earlier posts, including this very thing when you last tried it but perhaps I'll try something more direct: spare me such bullshit, your warnings are useless for this discussion and you're of no importance or position to issue me warnings on grounds of veracity of an argument. Offer arguments with some detachment from personal trips or be aware that no stock will be put into what you write.

I don't know you personally and I don't want to pass any judgements on you as a human being. Maybe I simply pushed your buttons unknowingly and you're otherwise a great person but you seem to be keen on making this whole exchange progressively more personal, with practically every post of yours about this thing - again, which we discuss due to your continued interest and raised issues - containing some attempt at ridicule or other personal remark. Why, do you want to simply cause some issues?

Let me point out again that implementing this isn't on the mod author.
Let me point out that I already acknowledged and addressed that.

Let me also point out - again - that you're whole conundrum can easily be solved by simply disabling this feature, something you're apparently too dense to understand:
No, it wouldn't, because the problem you think it'd solve is subtly different from the one I posed. But sure, blame your inability or unwilligness to acknowledge that subtlety on me being supposedly dense, that's a great way to prop up your claim.

No, my offered solution would actually solve your 'problem' without touching base defences at all. It would do exactely do what you're requesting - restore the loot that you're 'missing out on' - you just have to fight for it.
Then it wouldn't at all do what I spoke about. Refer to the, once again, my explanation where I actually see the problem. Or better yet, let me try to simplify it further: the problem isn't that I get this or that much loot, the problem is because of what the loot pool is decreased.

It's the easiest way, it doesn't require any additional work and it doesn't brake game mechanics or balance and your not going to have to drag yourself out of that lake you're about to fall in.

Eh, more of that, eh? Don't worry, I won't have to drag myself out of the lake because I won't fall in, I'll spring back by bouncing off you as you fall into it. Was that sentence silly? Yes it was, as silly as pointless as your continued remarks and personal warnings/threats how I am about to be like this or that. If you simply cannot do without that and just want to argue because you've got personally commited to it rather than actually wanting to discuss things, do tell, there's no point in it if all it does is getting you annoyed.

Offline HT

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 381
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2824 on: September 05, 2019, 10:52:06 pm »
I want to play it too. We can only pray. ;)

We can only hope.

That, or the future XCOM3 by Firaxis has similar themes, but it will probably TFTD-lite .

That reminds me: Is the Commendation minor mod going to be integrated with the final 1.0 release? Just to know. IIRC you wanted to make these medals more significant and make them give minor bonuses.

Offline krautbernd

  • Commander
  • *****
  • Posts: 656
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2825 on: September 06, 2019, 01:12:48 pm »
[snip]
On to summary #3 - I'm going to adress these as they come up, because quoting each individual paragraph isn't doing anyone any favors. Unfortunately  this also means that some points are going to crop up multiple times. I'm also having trouble understanding some of your sentences since your english isn't...let's call it 'well formed'. Not that I'm one to talk, being a non-native speaker, but ffs at least I'm trying to respect basic grammar rules.

You suspect that I was being disingenuous and decide to answer a perceived stab (fyi it was rhetorical question) with a passive-agressiv remark. I'm not sure what to make of that, or what it has to do with the issue at hand.

You're apparently under the impression that a totally optional feature - which reduces the number of enemies on base defense missions - is unbalanced but only as far as XCF is concerned, disregarding that base defense missions aren't inherently different for any mod since they follow vanilla mechanics, given how loot is only dependand on the enemies spawned during such missions. If you're concerned with general balancing of the mechanic go request a change of this feature in the OXCE subforum, not here. If XCF is 'unbalanced' because you're feeling disenfranchised by the 'missing' loot this would hold true for any other mod that uses the mechanic, including vanilla if the mechanic is enabled. I'm not sure what to make of your statement/complaint about the mechanic 'being fine' or me saying anything about 'mechanical issue' in regards to the feature as implemented. I never said that there were any issue with the current implementation, only with your 'bound to fail'-scheme how it should be changed.

You are not actually adressing any of the game balance issue I've brought up, and you're not adressing the question of what kind of loot or resources should actually be recovered after a succesful base defense. You're still trying to make it out that the current implementation of the feature takes loot away, when you're actual argument is apparently that the player should be able to recover additional loot depending on how much damage the player deals to an invading UFO. At least that's the only interpretation that make any sense for what you're proposing, but as I've already mentioned some of your sentences aren't...easy...to understand.

You have essentially gone from "I want to be able to recover some of the loot/bodies I didn't fight for" to "I feel the current state is so unbalanced that base defence loot in general needs to be rebalanced". I told you were going down a rabbit hole trying to rationalize your proposal. You don't disappoint.

As for you calling into question the logic of 'my argument' you might want to keep in mind that I'm not the one who implemented the mechanic, and I'm not the one who requested it either. Yet I can point to existing game mechanics and balancing to justify it's current implementation. I don't have to construct an increasingly complex and incoherent pile of ideas and excuses as to why the mechanic is so flawed that it needs to be changed, and why simply disabling it isn't an option either. If it's so flawed that it needs to be changed go request that change in the OXCE subforum, not here. This has nothing to do with XCF, but with a core gameplay mechanic. Again, you've apparently no idea what implementing your idea would entail, and why simply reducing the number of spawned enemies is inherently different from implementing UFO-dependant loot.

You're also misconstruing base defences as only having net benefits or that are 'supposed' to only have net benefits - neither statement is true. For one, base defences take up building space, which might be better used for other facilities, and building enough base defences might seriously impact other base expansions and functions. Your argument only makes sense if you outright ignore the actual point (preventing UFOs from landing) base defence buildings have in vanilla (i.e. without enabling the feature you're complaining about) - which didn't net you any loot. By your logic the player only benefits from base defences as long as they don't build enough defences to destroy the invading UFO. Which ties back to the above paragraph of you going from "I want loot I didn't fight for" to "Base defence in general is unbalanced and unfair and needs to be refactored". No, it simply doesn't, and complaing about any of that in this forum isn't going to accomplish anything.

If you're actually serious about this - instead of simply wanting to rant and/or troll - post this in the OXCE subforum. At this point you're complaining about core gameplay mechanics and request an option to modify them. This is apparent by you stating that disabling the feature doesn't solve your problem, since disabling it reverts things to vanilla mechanics. None of this is inside the scope of XCF or a gameplay mod.

While I haven't contributed to OXC's or OXCE's code, I have a general understanding of how mechanics are implemented and how to change basic gameplay features should I ever feel the need to do so. I can tell you outright that simply reducing the number of spawned enemies is vastly simpler than what you are requesting. I'm not asking you take my word for it - go post your request in the OXCE subforum and see what the actual maintainers have to say about it. Provided you actually have a grasp on what it is you're requesting. You're assertion that 'resources' "could be stored off-map" - among other things - tells me that you don't.

The basic problem with your request is two-fold:

Issue number one is that not only does it break balance and pre-existing mechanics, you're now also at a point where you are calling for a refactoring or core gameplay mechanics to justify your proposed changes. Issue number two is that it's not feasible to implement given the complexity and actual benefit of doing so.

What you don't seem to understand - or want to admit - is that the current implementation is balanced according to vanilla mechanics and correctly reflects the current state of your base defences. Your whole argument is based on the assumption that the player should be rewarded for not fighting invaders. Instead of actually adressing most of the points I'm bringing up you're trying to now make this about balancing base defence mission in general - something quite different from what you were originally complaining about:

Quote
Yes, but you fight less aliens not as an arbitrarily chosen option with its own price to pay, but due to partially succesful defensive measures. With less loot, the game basically punishes the player for having some air defenses that damaged the UFO over having none.

Which is factually wrong, since the player always has the option to disable lessAliensDuringBaseDefense and revert to vanilla behaviour and (as I've pointed out multiple times by now) ignores how base defences actually work (i.e. no loot when you have enough base defences). This whole exchange is an extension of that original, flawed claim of yours, and your unwillingness to actually adress or acknowledge it.

As for me coming up with the 'aliens drag their comrades out of the UFO' idea and that being a straw man argument because you didn't suggest it, let me remind you what a straw man argument is: an exaggeration, misrepresenation or fabrication of an idea. You were the one requesting dead bodies to be recovered after a successful base assault. Which means the bodies have to be recovered, either form the UFO or from your base. Which means the bodies have to end up in your base at the start of the assault, or x-com having unhindered access to the UFO. The aliens dragging their dead comrades out of the UFO is not an exaggeration or misrepresentation - it's the only explanation that makes sense if x-com doesn't also recover the rest of the UFO. Otherwise, how do the bodies end up in your base? I asked you - repeatedly - to clarify your stance on this, and how any of this is supposed to make sense in-game. Your response? "It's a straw man! I didn't say that!" True, you didn't say it, but that is the implication of what you're proposing. You were free to adress that point and explain how this should be handled. Why didn't you?

I'd also like to point out that it is not on me to provide you with scenarios for your proposed mechanic. You know how many enemies normally spawn during a base defense, and what items they can carry. The point is not to come up with an explanation for one uniquely defined case, but a general principle that's feasible to implement - you are the one claiming that your mechanic is (supposedly) superior to what's in the game right now. To me it sounds more like you have no idea what you're talking about.

Again, as far as I can tell you're having trouble with or are actively in denial about the two endpoints of base defence scenarios - on one end we have the total destruction of the invading UFO, with no battlescape fight an accordingly no recovered loot, on the other side we have a full spawn of enemies in the base, with all the loot that can possible be recovered. Those are our starting points, from which we can define additional scenarios, according to defences present in the base. The current implementation - if enabled via lessAliensDuringBaseDefense=true - prevents enemy spawns according to the damage the UFO receives. Enemy spawns are the only thing that can feasibly be modified during base defense missions, because they are the only thing that actually spawns. Why - in your oppinion - is this mechanic arbitrary and not a natural progression? What makes your proposal - provided you can actually define it in a coherent way - more suited and less arbitrary, given that you want to introduce factors that currently don't exist at either end of the spectrum, let alone in the game?

While I'd accept that lore doesn't explicitly say the UFO isn't recovered after a sucessful defense, the UFO isn't actually recovered, and the game accordingly isn't balanced for it. Which implies that the UFO isn't recovered in-game. Point taken though, I cited lore when I shouldn't have. This still means you proposal would break existing game balance if implemented or you'd have to explain why bodies and equipment are recovered, but the rest of the UFO isn't.

Citing better armor and weapons (or research progression in general) in favor of your idea is counterfactual, since this ingores that game isn't balanced for base defence buildings providing free loot - the point of base defence buildings is to prevent base defenses taking place (which means no loot, not more loot, see above paragraph concenring starting points for base defences). In fact, neither armor nor weapons do ever provide the player with free loot or - by their sole existance - kill enemies. The feature in it's current form doesn't touch item/loot balance, since the recovered items represent actual enemies killed by your soldiers instead of 'free items' or additional loot for enemies that didn't spawn.

The reason I'm warning you about being on thin ice is same that I'm telling your going down a rabbit hole with your idea. Let me remind you that this started out with you requesting "bodies and loot" for enemies that didn't spawn. We are now talking about refactoring the loot balance for base defence missions, because the existing system (and not just the feature that was introduced) is apparently not to your liking. I've asked you to post your proposition in a place where it actually makes sense to post these complaints and suggestions of yours. Apparently I'm the one who has no idea what he's talking about, because I've asked you repeatedly to clarify what it is you're actually requesting, and whether you've any idea how any of this should be implemented. You haven't been able to answer either of those question, but you insist that your idea would be (or rather have to be) superior to what's currently implemented, as the current way is aapparently not - as I've tried to explain to you - a natural progression of base defence mission, but arbitrary.

Your initial complaint is based on a false assumption, your proposed solution is more complex and incoherent than both the new feature or the vanilla implementation, and you have to ask others to provide you with a scenario so you can work how your idea would actually be implemented.

Are you really wondering why I'm warning you about being on thin ice? Protip: Being on thin ice doesn't mean somebody is about to make you fall into the water. It's not a threat. It's a warning concerning your own inability to judge the position you are in.
« Last Edit: September 06, 2019, 01:22:52 pm by krautbernd »

Offline Thunderwing280

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2826 on: September 07, 2019, 07:59:07 pm »
How do I get the access card to get into the hybrid embassy?

Offline TheCurse

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 323
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2827 on: September 08, 2019, 01:40:55 am »
finally got heavy tactical suit.
But it gives me 2 ufopedia entries, one for the suit and another one exactly the same, but with (H) added to the title.
whats the difference?
(tritanium version does that too)

Offline Thunderwing280

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2828 on: September 08, 2019, 02:06:43 am »
finally got heavy tactical suit.
But it gives me 2 ufopedia entries, one for the suit and another one exactly the same, but with (H) added to the title.
whats the difference?
(tritanium version does that too)
That is the version the hybrid agents you can get use, apart from that it's exactly the same

Offline TheCurse

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 323
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2829 on: September 08, 2019, 05:12:32 am »
thanks, that explains.
no hybrids yet though, hence the confusion.
another one, does the zombie cave respawn?
couldnt take it (got seriously wiped out no matter what i tried) and wanted to wait for better tech...

Offline JustTheDude

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2830 on: September 08, 2019, 09:38:48 am »
finally got heavy tactical suit.
But it gives me 2 ufopedia entries, one for the suit and another one exactly the same, but with (H) added to the title.
whats the difference?
(tritanium version does that too)

Sprite and description should be way different.
Suit with "(H)" means it has (H)elmet. There is a difference and it's fairly important. Helmet gives you additional 5 armor to right and left side and also protects you from smoke (and probably buffs some other resistance, I'm not sure), but it reduces energy recovery and reactions, in addition gal inside overheats faster in Hot maps.
It's just a matter of choice if you want one thing, or another. Most enemies don't use smoke too much and 5 armor at midgame isn't that important, while energy recovery and reactions is.

Offline Thunderwing280

  • Captain
  • ***
  • Posts: 97
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2831 on: September 08, 2019, 01:41:43 pm »
Sprite and description should be way different.
Suit with "(H)" means it has (H)elmet. There is a difference and it's fairly important. Helmet gives you additional 5 armor to right and left side and also protects you from smoke (and probably buffs some other resistance, I'm not sure), but it reduces energy recovery and reactions, in addition gal inside overheats faster in Hot maps.
It's just a matter of choice if you want one thing, or another. Most enemies don't use smoke too much and 5 armor at midgame isn't that important, while energy recovery and reactions is.
I thought it was for hybrid as when I looked through the ufopedia it always showed armor with a H as hybrid wearing it.
You're talking about gals though, are you sure you're talking about X-files or X-piratez?

Offline JustTheDude

  • Colonel
  • ****
  • Posts: 285
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2832 on: September 08, 2019, 03:00:28 pm »
I thought it was for hybrid as when I looked through the ufopedia it always showed armor with a H as hybrid wearing it.
You're talking about gals though, are you sure you're talking about X-files or X-piratez?

Dang... I didn't notice it's other forum.

Offline Solarius Scorch

  • Global Moderator
  • Commander
  • ***
  • Posts: 9842
  • WE MUST DISSENT
    • View Profile
    • Nocturmal Productions modding studio website
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2833 on: September 09, 2019, 11:21:33 am »
ALL human armours have (H) versions for hybrids.

Offline hum88

  • Squaddie
  • *
  • Posts: 2
    • View Profile
Re: The X-Com Files - 0.9.9e2: Summertime Lovin'
« Reply #2834 on: September 18, 2019, 07:03:17 pm »
Hello

I am on samael's mission and my game crashes when i win by mind-controling or stunning last enemy. Here's my savefile https://ln2.sync.com/dl/edf102200/miqf9s5m-pxsewzx5-bvdp4tes-sd3gkvbn [nofollow]. I hope that can be of any help.