Solar's wishlist

[khade]

So, I know we've established, more or less, that there isn't really a practical way to turn off temporarily the national funding.  However, I had an idea that I want to check on:

Is it possible to have the score and funding be tracked, but you not get that funding until you do some sort of research?  Have it be how much they'd be willing to pay for you to go away and bother someone else? Probably unlocked through communications.

I thought of this while wondering about funding from the Uber kingdom showing up after you research civilization, as a society without visible land, it could be eventually a stable source of funding.  Unless of course someone wanted to set up changing borders when something interesting happens.

If that is possible, and more importantly, worth the effort to do, we'd need early base costs to be approximately equal to what you can manufacture at game start, I believe that's selling moonshine.

Biggest cost in the starting base is the lab, I've suggested having it have two levels of cost, a very low one before you figure out the mainframe and the current one after.

[Dioxine]

None of this is possible either. But if you did some coding, maybe. Still, to completely rework all the lore and starting story? I came to terms with how it is now.

[khade]

If I ever end up having the time and actually get around to relearning to code, maybe I'll try to figure it out.

But since you appear to be fine with how things are right now, in that area at least, I'm not going to actively worry about it. Also won't worry about it since I do like the current start.

Here's another idea, can't really call it a wish, as I'm not Solar  , but if I ever get off my butt and actually work on the mod ideas floating around behind me, I'd find it useful, and I suspect others would as well:

A smaller hanger, I've heard we can't have 1x1 sized hangers, though I don't remember the reasons, so my idea is a 2x2 room that can have anywhere from 2 to 4 small ships based in it, I'm thinking nothing with more space than a pachyderm.  It would mostly be for fighters, maybe the tank could be built on it.  I imagine it costing about the same as the normal hanger, at least with maintenance.

My brain stopped working most of the way through that last paragraph, hopefully it makes at least some sense. 

[Eddie]

Maybe instead of making a new hangar, change ships so they can occupy "half" a hangar. Like the jetbike for instance, so you could have two jetbikes per hangar. Fractional hangar space variable does sound like it is either really easy to implement or impossible.
But if implemented, I can see uses for xfiles as well. Public transport should not require a hangar at all really.

[Dioxine]

It is easy to make 1x1 hangar, it would be able to hold any craft, tho. In any case, I don't really feel the need. 2x2 size puts a nice soft limit on aircraft spam.

[Solarius Scorch]

Hi Meridian,

After so many months of fruitful and exciting development of OXCE+, I have decided to revisit and reevaluate all the features that have not been implemented yet. While all proposed features are still valid, some of them seem more important then others and some have lost some importance because of other features that are already in or because my creative vision shifted. This could be informative as additional input.

1. GLOBAL DAMAGE ALTER PER TYPE
Priority: very low
Justification: While it would be helpful, I have accepted that this would be difficult/controversial to implement. Since we can do the same with individual weapons, and the bulk of my work there has already been done, I don't really care much any more.
A more general system for inheriting parts of item definition would be awesome though.

2. MORE THAN 1 DAMAGE TYPE PER BULLET
Priority: low
Justification: With the new definable damage types, the need for multiple damage types per attack has significantly diminished. For example instead of making an AP bullet which also deals electric damage, I can simply create a new damage type and match armours accordingly. Again, this is much more work for me, but it is doable.

3. TERRAIN DESTRUCTION BY MELEE
Priority: high
Justification: Lack of this feature has been a pain since melee weapons were added, and nothing has changed here. Half-assed solutions like 1-tile "ranged" weapons are not really satisfactory, and impossibility of using a machete to damage a bush is frustrating.

4. TERRAIN TRAMPLING BY AI UNITS
Priority: medium
Justification: Reaper rampaging through walls would be a fun feature to have, and it would make the AI more unpredictable. Small features like this one, when aggregated, make for a better, more complex and enjoyable experience. Still, it's a small addition, which in itself wouldn't impact the game all that much. Desireable, but not a high priority.

5. ALTERNATE ANIMATION FOR OVERKILL
Priority: medium
Justification: A purely aesthetic thing, but adding it would really enhance the experience. Ludicrous Gibs are a trope for a reason, and some weapons just aren't the same without it. Plus it seems (to a layman like me) to be relatively easy to add.

6. MULTIPLE UFOS/CRAFTS
Priority: low
Justification: You can circumvent this problem by using UFOs with the same tilesets, which makes this feature a little less urgent. I'd probably place it at medium priority, but I already learned to live without it without much loss.

7. COMMENDATION BONUSES
Priority: high
Justification: Well... I have plans. Dioxine has plans. This feature would revolutionize (in a good way) the RPG aspect of the game. Frankly, I have a metaphorical boner when I think about the possibilities.

8. MORE INFO ON WEAPONS (aka "stats for nerds button")
Priority: medium
Justification: Typing all this additional stuff in every single weapon description is tedious as all hell. Yeah, we could live without it, but a) it feels liek typical pointless work which should be automated and b) the end result will never be as good as an standardized output.

9. MORE INFO ON ARMOURS
Priority: medium
Justification: Same as above.

10. X-COM CRAFT CRASH SITES
Priority: very low
Justification: I don't even know how I would want to use this feature. Would have probably removed it long ago, but some other modders expressed interest in it, so I'm keeping it for now.

11. RANDOM MANUFACTURING
Priority: low
Justification: I know you don't like this idea, but I have some potential uses for it - mostly to do away with some random treasure lists, which are awesome but not optimal in some cases. Still, nothing really revolutionary.

12. RANDOM BASE NAMES
Priority: medium
Justification: Another seemingly superficial, but in my opinion fun feature that adds to the fluff. Besides, I love writing generators!

13. RESEARCH: FALSE FOR UFOPAEDIA ARTICLES
Priority: high
Justification: Lack of this option causes confusion with some Piratez players and there's no other way of clearing it up easily (without sacrificing some gameplay).

14. FACILITIES: REQUIRED STAFF (SOLDIERS)
Priority: low
Justification: I think we have all accepted that this wouldn't happen anytime soon. Anyway, it's not my request and I have never really been interested in it personally, so it's hard for me to evaluate its value.

15. (not on the list but requested elsewhere) MID-BATTLE REINFORCEMENTS FOR THE AI
Priority: very high
Justification: I literally have several missions already designed (and some of it even made!) around this concept. Definitely a must have for almost any tactical game which is supposed to cover various scenarios, and OXCE+ as a whole moves X-Com in that area.

16. (not on the list but requested elsewhere) SPAWN ITEMS/UNITS MID-BATTLE
Priority: medium
Justification: This is something that comes back again and again in various forms from various people. Well, you can't make a Brainsucker Launcher without it! And it would allow for things like deployable turrets, spawned from items in hand.

If there is something else I have forgotten, please let me know.

[Eddie]

In the OXCE subforum there was the suggestion of accuracy reduction for indirect fire, meaning you only get full accuracy for aiming at tiles your unit can actually see.
I like that idea a lot, as it severely limits the major advantage the player has over the AI (sniper spotter tactics). In the reverse, I would also love to see the AI beeing taught how to do sniper spotter tactics, limited by intelligence. The intelligence check could be for all availiable units (high intelligence commander telling his troops what to do), so killing the commander would actually change the enemy tactics (no more sniper spotter tactics if troops are too stupid). Also, you would actually notice a difference between intelligent and dumb enemies.

If these features are ever implemented, it would severely change the battlescape gameplay. If it's implemented sooner rather than later, modders have more time to adjust content.

I can think of one more AI improvement that is easy to implement: Kamikaze flag.
If a unit has the kamikaze flag, skip the retreat algorithm (fleeing when too many opponents spotted). Useful for zombies.
Kamikaze behaviour could also be triggered by low intelligence if a seperate parameter is not wanted.

I know Meridian doesn't want to touch AI code, but there are some really low hanging fruit that would do much to improve/diversify gameplay.

[Ragshak]

Would be nice to see (alongside movement arrows and TU left) how much energy will be avaible after movement.
Would like to see 1h spear.
Would like to see 2h lance with 2 hex reach.
Would like to see for throwing weapons (like javelins or throwing axes) option to "swing"/or/"thrust" with them in melee.
Would like to see upgraded ALT option  so it would tell which spotted enemies see selected gal at the moment.

[Solarius Scorch]

In the OXCE subforum there was the suggestion of accuracy reduction for indirect fire, meaning you only get full accuracy for aiming at tiles your unit can actually see.

Yes, I tohught about it too, many times... But I don't have a model yet I'd feel confident about.

In the reverse, I would also love to see the AI beeing taught how to do sniper spotter tactics, limited by intelligence. The intelligence check could be for all availiable units (high intelligence commander telling his troops what to do), so killing the commander would actually change the enemy tactics (no more sniper spotter tactics if troops are too stupid). Also, you would actually notice a difference between intelligent and dumb enemies.

Hmmm... Worth experimenting on. But not idea how it'd turn out.

I can think of one more AI improvement that is easy to implement: Kamikaze flag.
If a unit has the kamikaze flag, skip the retreat algorithm (fleeing when too many opponents spotted). Useful for zombies.
Kamikaze behaviour could also be triggered by low intelligence if a seperate parameter is not wanted.

Yeah, that'd be nice.

[khade]

Kamikaze would lower the "crap, Cryssallid close to my troops, everyone is gonna die! Wait, is it dancing?" scenario.

Having a seperate scent range, for things like zombies, or an intelligence check when you actually fire a weapon around zombies or other sound or whatever based creatures for them to zero in on.  Like you fire a loud gun and any zombie will head to that location unless they actively notice a better target, or scorpions will flee from loud noises.  It could add to the tactical choices if you have a decent idea of how the enemy ought to react.

[Solarius Scorch]

Zombies have sense/psi vision, so this part is already in.

A sound system is another matter, for now not really planned.

[khade]

When you get too close to zombies, it's kind of terrifying.  Maybe it's that I haven't yet run into a crysallid since aggression was boosted, but other melee units I've seen aren't nearly as scary as a zombie showing up 5 spaces away from your gal, say because you're clearing buildings, and biting 4+ times.  Problem is getting the zombie to that point, as they're still wishy-washy.

[Solarius Scorch]

When you get too close to zombies, it's kind of terrifying.  Maybe it's that I haven't yet run into a crysallid since aggression was boosted, but other melee units I've seen aren't nearly as scary as a zombie showing up 5 spaces away from your gal, say because you're clearing buildings, and biting 4+ times.  Problem is getting the zombie to that point, as they're still wishy-washy.

Yes... I will add the kamikaze mode to the list. (I avoided AI-related requests up until now, but I'll do it just this time.)

[legionof1]

Given the new CQC checks, is it possible to setup gunbutt strikes to override snapshot as the reaction action while adjacent?

[Solarius Scorch]

Given the new CQC checks, is it possible to setup gunbutt strikes to override snapshot as the reaction action while adjacent?

But what is the shot is way stronger? Would that be settable via ruleset, item by item? Or do you propose some general rule?