OXCE (OpenXcom Extended) main thread

[Meridian]

Meridian, can you tell us what was done in version 6.9.7-e? I don't even know where to look and what to test, other than what was discussed. What's in development? When the release of a new version that is already underway.

I will provide a changelog with the official release.

The next official release is v7.0 and will be released probably on March 13th.

[Markus Ramikin]

What exactly is the minimum condition to train throwing with grenades?
I just did this:
- One soldier threw 3 armed alien grenades
- One soldier threw 3 armed smoke grenades
- One soldier threw 3 unarmed smoke grenades
Then I loaded them back onto the Skyranger and left. The post-mission screen showed 0 gains for all.
Repeated the same with save scumming on. Same result.
Me confused.

Do I have to hit an enemy target? Or do I need to beat the mission?

[Meridian]

Throwing as such doesn't train throwing accuracy in OXCE, more details here: https://openxcom.org/forum/index.php/topic,4230.0.html

Hitting (zero damage also counts) an enemy with a thrown weapon does.
So for example, if you throw a grenade, it explodes and hits 5 enemies... you get +5 throwing experience... which then transforms into +1, +2 or +3 throwing accuracy at the end of the mission.

[Markus Ramikin]

- Craft weapons+ammo and HWPs+ammo now count properly towards storage limits... this was done to fix various situations where player was stuck on SELL screen
  * Hangars in xcom1/xcom2 were given +5 storage space to offset new storage counting and to be compatible with original XCOM (not with OpenXcom)

I wonder what sort of situations caused this. Producing craft ammo that took up more space than the materials going into it, while advancing time by "1 day" so it's hard to stop before the forced sale is triggered again and again?

If I guessed this correctly, then I wonder why something similar wasn't done with armors. At the moment armors worn by soldiers don't count towards the storage limit, and it's possible to get a situation with the SELL screen popping up if producing Alloy/Platics armor, since they take up more space than the materials used.

[Meridian]

I wonder what sort of situations caused this.

In OXC, losing a part of the base due to base defense.
In OXCE, additionally also missile strikes.

Just producing stuff would not cause this, you can sell a lot of other stuff without getting stuck.
To get stuck, you need a sudden and drastic change in storage space.

[Markus Ramikin]

How do "stats for nerds" (I hate that name with a passion) calculate "average DPM" for Craft Weapons?

For UFOs I understand the results. A Battleship has 140 damage, 60% accuracy, 0-100% damage range, average reload of 24 on Superhuman. 140*(60/24)*(60/100)*(1/2)=105. And the game indeed shows a DPM of 105.

A Laser Cannon has 70 damage, 35% accuracy, 24s reload, and presumably a damage range of 50%-100%. 70*(35/100)*(60/24)*(3/4) ≈ 46. The screen shows 61, which is 4/3 of what I calculated. Is the 50-100% damage range not observed in OXC, or OXCE?

In OXC, losing a part of the base due to base defense.
In OXCE, additionally also missile strikes.

I see, I made wrong assumptions, then.

But I'm not sure I understand. How did that lead to being stuck, in a way that just selling enough stuff didn't solve? Why was the handling of craft armaments and tanks particularly important?

[Meridian]

How do "stats for nerds" (I hate that name with a passion) calculate "average DPM" for Craft Weapons?

// (damage / standard reload * 60) * (accuracy / 100)
int avgDPM = craftWeaponRule->getDamage() * craftWeaponRule->getAccuracy() * 60 / craftWeaponRule->getStandardReload() / 100;

Is the 50-100% damage range not observed in OXC, or OXCE?

It is.

But I'm not sure I understand. How did that lead to being stuck, in a way that just selling enough stuff didn't solve? Why was the handling of craft armaments and tanks particularly important?

Start a new game, sell everything, go to sell screen again... you'll see you still have a lot of stuff even after you sold everything.

Now imagine you try to do that with storage space = 0.
You wouldn't be able to perform the first sell (both sell and cancel buttons would be hidden and you would be stuck).

[Markus Ramikin]

It is.

But not in the "stats for nerds"?

If I found the right git source, then I see the UFO part contains the 0-100% spread factor:

Code: [Select]

// spread 0-100%
double avgDamage = totalPower * 0.5;And indeed the values displayed on the stats page come out as what you'd expect.

But the craft weapon part doesn't seem to include the 50-100% damage spread. This affects both average and total damage displayed. And indeed the values come out wrong.

What I'm trying to ask is if this an oversight that needs to be fixed? Or am I missing something.

[Meridian]

What I'm trying to ask is if this an oversight that needs to be fixed? Or am I missing something.

I chose the value without 50-100% for Craft weapons to be consistent with the main Ufopedia display.... Ufopedia says Damage=70 (instead of Power=70).

Whereas in UFO articles, Ufopedia refers to Power (not Damage), so I added the damage spread to calculate damage from power.

I don't mind changing it, but it will be inconsistent one way or another.

What's more important than the absolute numbers is the relative comparison of two weapons.
Regardless if the numbers say 50 and 100; or 70 and 140... the second weapon does twice as much damage as the first one.

PS: btw. even with damage spread considered, the numbers can still be very far from reality... pilot skills, craft bonuses, ufo bonuses and alien race bonuses all affect the final numbers and can make the same weapon very effective in one situation and completely useless in another situation

[Markus Ramikin]

I see.

I chose the value without 50-100% for Craft weapons to be consistent with the main Ufopedia display.... Ufopedia says Damage=70 (instead of Power=70).

Whereas in UFO articles, Ufopedia refers to Power (not Damage), so I added the damage spread to calculate damage from power.

I don't mind changing it, but it will be inconsistent one way or another.

What's more important than the absolute numbers is the relative comparison of two weapons.
Regardless if the numbers say 50 and 100; or 70 and 140... the second weapon does twice as much damage as the first one.

There's also UFO DPS vs craft DPS. And there's total expected weapon damage vs UFO hitpoints.

In those contexts the omission makes the craft weapons look more powerful than they are. I discovered this because I'm working on a little craft/ufo balance mod right now. For me it's not a problem anymore, since thanks to your explanation I know what's going on, and I'm doing the same thing in a spreadsheet, but still, until I asked I was confused. I cannot be the only person who will ever think of using that screen as a quick way to check "can this craft weapon shoot down this UFO before it runs out of ammo".

A stats/calculations display is an opportunity to present real values to the player, precisely because Ufopedia is wrong/misleading (when it says "Damage", it doesn't actually mean damage, it means a stored value that happens to be labelled "Damage"). Being consistent with in-game Ufopaedia has less value than giving the player accurate info.

This could be fixed by showing the damage range in the Ufopaedia - which actually might not be a bad idea. But perhaps not worth the effort, the added visual complication, and departure from past practice. X-com veterans are used to pedia values being worthless anyway.

PS: btw. even with damage spread considered, the numbers can still be very far from reality... pilot skills, craft bonuses, ufo bonuses and alien race bonuses all affect the final numbers and can make the same weapon very effective in one situation and completely useless in another situation

Right, Extended features. Atm I'm working with vanilla mechanics, and use Extended solely because it lets me use a keyboard shortcut to Mind Control things.

Spoiler:

Joking. I mean I use it for that and the MANY other conveniences like that. And for the equal mutual surprise fix, which I still don't think is documented but which I absolutely love. EDIT: hm, how do I do an inline spoiler...

Anyhoo. Thanks for the replies. Me, I'll be fine either way now that I understand, but for whatever it's worth, I think UFO and Craft values should be consistent.

[Meridian]

I cannot be the only person who will ever think of using that screen as a quick way to check "can this craft weapon shoot down this UFO before it runs out of ammo".

OK, I'll change it today.

And for the equal mutual surprise fix, which I still don't think is documented but which I absolutely love.

This will take some time.
It's a non-trivial part of the source code and I will need to read it, understand it, test it and dig years into the past to compare all the changes.
But I'll do it eventually (it's todolisted), just need to get in the mood for it.

[Ethereal]

Let's also introduce automatic combat on missions. (Sarcasm)
  I don't think this is necessary. The player must think with his own head. And if everything is reduced to automation - why is a player needed then?

[Markus Ramikin]

OK, I'll change it today.

Cool!

This will take some time.

I figured. Pardon me, didn't mean to nag.

[Ethereal]

I cannot be the only person who will ever think of using that screen as a quick way to check "can this craft weapon shoot down this UFO before it runs out of ammo".

OK, I'll change it today.

I say right away - I am categorically against if such a function cannot be turned off.

Let me explain why. It will take you several updates to refine this function, since you need to take into account all the factors (avoidBonus, armor, powerBonus, raceBonus, shieldDamageModifier), otherwise it will all work through ass, as the base defense systems work now. I did not write, because even from the original UFO I was used to defending my bases exclusively by aviation and protective buildings for me are nothing more than decor, but nevertheless.

[Markus Ramikin]

What?

We're talking about the "stats for nerds" screen, which already exists, already provides a "total damage" estimate, and which yes, can be turned off.