Messages

76

User modifications / Re: Player Skills reset to 0

« on: January 19, 2013, 09:47:34 pm »

I'd like to find out how to earn experience for each stat, and numerical values for the benefit each stat provides (where it isn't obvious, such as HP). Is this information written down somewhere?

77

User modifications / Re: Convert saves from Simple to Full Campaign

« on: January 19, 2013, 05:08:58 pm »

What's the difference between simple and full campaign, anyway? It would be nice if it told you somewhere in-game.

78

Feature Requests / Re: Base Improvements

« on: January 18, 2013, 08:03:47 pm »

It is their time, they can waste it. I don't think it worth the tries. How many nations we have, 8? That's 16 possible position for the first base. And I would only restrict location of the first base. Other bases will need to be built up from nothing anyway. And if random location doesn't work we can set up a fixed list for possible first-base locations (which is reasonable either: Nations want you to cover most of their area, they can say "We give you one of these bases only").

As long as you're aware of it. It makes sense from a storytelling perspective, but you also have to consider that PHALANX is the only game in town. That's a not-insignificant source of political leverage, I think. It could be justified either way. Personally, I rather reload a bunch of times than let my new base be crippled with unbuildable squares and things like that, but that's just me.

Hard rocks cannot/shouldn't dig out.

I was hoping for a little more detail here - that doesn't even make sense grammatically, let alone in another way. Why were those squares put in in the first place? If PHALANX can choose a base location anywhere in the world, don't you think they could pick a site without unstable or too-difficult-to-work-with geology?

79

Feature Requests / Re: Base Improvements

« on: January 18, 2013, 12:04:35 pm »

You are aware that if people aren't satisfied with their random layout or base location, they're just going to restart / reload until they get a satisfactory outcome, right?

For base layouts, it may actually be a good idea and a worthwhile tradeoff - if the base has less buildings than usual, that means you have more money left over, which may be useful, even if you have to deal with build times. It's a trade-off worth considering.

What about those unbuildable squares? What is the reasoning for those?

Also, will the ability to sell / decommission a base be added eventually?

80

Feature Requests / Re: Base Improvements

« on: January 18, 2013, 07:34:06 am »

I'd prefer to design the first base, with the buildings available at the start in a list so you can put them how you want with no time or economic penalty.

I second this. The OpenXCom project has implemented this; unless it's a design choice, I don't see why we shouldn't have this option, too. There could be an option in the Gameplay Options called 'custom design first base' or something, which those people who prefer to design their own first base could toggle.

81

Discussion / Re: New encumbrance/TU system

« on: January 18, 2013, 07:25:22 am »

On my newest playthrough, I've started in South America, built that base up over the first couple of months (2 workshops, 4 laboratories), then built a second base in North America. My primary goal for this playthrough is to determine ideal base locations for radar coverage by working my way around the world, which is why I started with the most out of the way place.

However, there has been a real dearth of UFOs in South America, with the result that I'm almost at the point where I can unlock power armor (I have alien body armor available to research), and my main base has only had approx. 15 missions so far.

Personally, I found it slightly easier to keep the funding nations happy in 2.4, with the constant missions. But it is still balanced; even with UFOs practically avoiding my area of the world, the few missions I've had let me keep the happiness values from plummeting.

(By the way, how significant is the happiness boost you get for selling an UFO to a nation? Is it worth taking less money for it?)

82

Discussion / Re: New encumbrance/TU system

« on: January 04, 2013, 12:12:46 am »

Is it intended to be just a guesstimation, or is there a reason it can't accurately reflect the actual hit chance?

83

Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: geoscape time doesn't stop when supposed to

« on: January 02, 2013, 11:44:45 pm »

You could mention more details - such as which build of 2.5dev you are playing (date), and if you find this happening shortly after you saved, you could provide that savegame. The UFOs' behavior seems predetermined up to a certain point - when a UFO changes direction, the new direction (and destination, presumably) is randomly decided at that point.

Did you check your notification messages? They may not be configured correctly. I haven't had this problem, though I think I've had had a 'you lost tracking of this UFO' message appear when the UFO had already left the detection radius some time ago, once or twice.

84

Bugs in stable version (2.5) / [2.5_dev_13/01/19] Destroying UFO from UFO yard confirmation window not closing

« on: January 02, 2013, 10:39:13 pm »

When destroying a captured UFO in the UFO yard, a confirmation window pops up asking the player if they are sure they want to destroy the UFO. Selecting 'Destroy' here doesn't cause said confirmation window to go away; it merely sends it to the back while the player is shown the updated UFO yard window. Once that is closed, it is still there. When clicking the window a second time, it closes, without destroying any additional UFOs.

Attached is a safefile with UFOs in storage at a UFO yard.

85

Bugs in stable version (2.5) / [2.5_dev_12/12/30] (Map: Small Suburban Street) Impassable tile(s)

« on: January 02, 2013, 12:48:52 am »

See screenshot; I can't progress any further down the hallway my cursor is pointing, no matter whether doors are opened or closed.
EDIT: Mirrored side is the same, of course.

86

Discussion / Re: New encumbrance/TU system

« on: January 01, 2013, 11:13:12 pm »

And yeah, aliens hit harder than they did in 2.4. Expect to lose more units / have a harder time playing a zero casualties game. Your armored soldiers might survive two plasma pistol shots, but will take ~2/3rds HP damage from plasma rifle shots, and within a few months of game time most aliens will be packing a plasma blaster that is capable of one-shotting your units with 8 TU reaction shots. Seriously, consider leaving that bulky armor at home. When I got the estate map (which is a small, tower-like house with multiple stories infested with aliens, with balconies and windows providing vantage points), the first time I had an armored team and it took like eight tries to get through it without losing someone. In my more recent playthrough, I sent in a team of unarmored soldiers taking advantage of bonus TUs and made it through in one try.

87

Discussion / Re: New encumbrance/TU system

« on: January 01, 2013, 10:42:08 pm »

When the encumbrance system came out, the starting strength of units got buffed. All soldiers created prior to that date are going to have horrifically subpar strength values. New hires' strength stats at the start of the game range from 30~39 or thereabouts. That's enough to wear armor, a heavy weapon, a medikit and maybe a reload or two, if you're on the high end of the scale, and stay inside the 50% needed to get your normal complement of TUs. If you're willing to settle for a non-heavy weapon, you get to load up on grenades and all that other good stuff. If you go without armor and don't take a heavy weapon, you can manage to stay inside 20% of your weight allowance and get bonus TUs. It's worth seriously considering whether it's worth sacrificing protection for mobility or vice versa.

You might want to start a new playthrough, hire new soldiers in your existing one, or hack your soldier's strength stats to reflect what they should be like - the way to do the latter is in one of these threads.

88

Feature Requests / [2.5_dev_12/12/23] Moon passes behind sun in geosphere

« on: January 01, 2013, 10:11:02 pm »

I've observed that the moon passes behind the sun when their orbits align. That's not how a solar system works

I realize expecting eclipses to be implemented might be going above and beyond the call of duty, but you could still have the moon obscure the sun from the camera's point of view without changing the lighting of the Earth. Right?

89

Discussion / Re: Changes for 2.5

« on: January 01, 2013, 10:06:00 pm »

Okay, guess that'll have to do. What time each month are those newsposts compiled, generally speaking?

90

Bugs in stable version (2.5) / [2.5_dev_12/12/23] (Map: House) Signpost not visible from ground level

« on: January 01, 2013, 05:03:18 pm »

The signpost to one side of the house is not visible from the ground level, it becomes visible only when moving the view to level 2 or above. I noticed this because my soldier was standing behind the sign and trying to shoot something, and the aiming line turned red in mid-air for seemingly no reason.