Messages

1

Tactics / Re: Base invasion

« on: March 03, 2011, 12:29:32 pm »

Personally I find base invasion missions overly tedious. The bases are huge and it takes far too long, especially when you can't save. Hunting for that last bloody alien has got to be the most boring part of the game.

IR goggles help a lot, but yeah... It's a bother...

2

Bugs in older version (2.3.1) / Re: INVSH_AddInvList: No free inventory space!

« on: February 26, 2011, 08:43:58 am »

I rename my soldiers after every battle coding their skills into the name and didn't notice anything of the kind. So maybe it's some different thing causing it.

3

Feature Requests / Re: Sprinting feature

« on: February 17, 2011, 07:38:22 pm »

Implementing it that way would not be useful. First, unless you make it "you can't do anything but move on the sprinting turn", double APs can be used for shooting. Second, even 75% of APs are enough for aimed shots with lots of weapons, not to mention close-up full-autos.

Now if you just cut down *movement* costs only, AND gave a huge penalty to accuracy, it might work...

4

Feature Requests / Re: Robots?

« on: February 13, 2011, 07:23:38 pm »

What about security bots? They won't be as harmless :)

(In fact, if at least some of civilians were armed, it'd add a lot to the game, IMO... Though honestly, even since the very first X-COM, I was always thinking... Let's say I'm one of those civilians who has some relatively decent weapons storage. There's a fight outside my window. I peek out and spot a sectoid and a flying armor X-COM folks shootout. Wonder whom would I aim at first -- with the look of those suits ;)

5

Feature Requests / Re: Sniper rifle buff?

« on: February 13, 2011, 07:18:48 pm »

I don't think even battery powered shape-change would rival either explosive, fragmenting, or infamous Black Talon munitions.

Also, there are actually existing IRL sniper ammo which change shape -- though they use piesoelectricity and do so to control flight.

6

Bugs in older version (2.3.1) / Re: Selecting wrong soldiers in aircraft screen

« on: February 04, 2011, 12:34:40 pm »

Seems to be the same as (or related to) http://ufoai.ninex.info/forum/index.php?topic=5639.0 -- merge?

7

Feature Requests / Re: fuck realism, dont kill ma soldier ;)

« on: February 04, 2011, 12:32:48 pm »

Actually, the way it is now (the next-to-nothing supply of personnel) *is* what makes soldier loss most frustrating in the first place.

As I see it, this is supposed to be a game where you have to take losses... And if you manage to avoid it, well, that's some awesome performance on your part. But this works only when you can replace the killed soldiers.

I recall one time I got sectoids attack my base on day three in original X-Com... Obviously, w/o save/load, it was game over. With saving and loading, I managed to get three soldiers to survive. That was the ONLY combat I was using savegames in battlescape in that run-through. Yeah, getting soldiers killed and hiring new ones drains lots of funds, but if you wanna have a breeze-through... Why not play on easy?

8

Feature Requests / Re: fuck realism, dont kill ma soldier ;)

« on: February 02, 2011, 11:57:14 am »

It is supposed to be pretty crippling... Otherwise, it would essentially eliminate the risk factor (well, barring instakills).

Maybe cut the wounded soldier's APs to say 10 then (so that they can *either* move a bit or maybe fire/RF once) and have him need to be healed if not *every* turn, then at least pretty often (every 2-3 turns).

Or, if we get the feature I proposed (heal oneself for 30AP "alt-fire" in medkits), it could just tie up the soldier himself once he's brought to consciousness by another.

9

Feature Requests / Re: fuck realism, dont kill ma soldier ;)

« on: February 01, 2011, 05:37:19 pm »

The most straightforward approach I can think of would be to add a "dying" status which stretches between something like zero and negative max health. Each turn they lose some health; either a fixed amount or a fixed fraction of their max health. Medkits can't restore health to a dying unit, but may be used to stabilize them, ending the HP loss. If a unit is in Dying status but still alive when combat ends, the unit is assumed to have been successfully stabilized after combat.

Make it "you need to pump them with a medkit every round until the end of combat" and work only when the wound is not /too/ bad, and it might be efficient enough penalty -- essentially, tying up another of your soldiers in a vulnerable position ;)

10

Feature Requests / Re: Geoscape feature requests

« on: January 30, 2011, 09:16:54 pm »

IIRC the game already calculates the optimum route for interception so it shouldn't be hard to calculate that distance or time.
Naturally if the target changes route suddenly, that calculated route will be wrong.

It currently calculates quite odd routes for interception if the target is flying away from interceptor, listed in bugs (maybe fixed in 2.4).

On indicating whether some buildings are utilized. Maybe just pop stats on mouse-over?

11

Bugs in older version (2.3.1) / Re: Base attack soldiers placement

« on: January 27, 2011, 04:32:03 pm »

Not to mention it's missing the point, I had it built that way, then had to build one more to accomodate for more tech people. Since then, at least four soldiers are always spawned in that furthest one. Also, I often have soldiers spawn in either a command center or a lab.

12

Feature Requests / Re: soldier camouflage: change in a single action

« on: January 26, 2011, 05:53:29 pm »

When I can, I do -- I proposed solutions in a few cases. Thing is, the only usable skill I can contribute here is algorithmization. But looking at the source, most of the stuff is undocumented. I have some experience with AIs, as well as other related things, but it is in specialized languages/environments which are hard to translate into structured languages like C which I have next to no experience with.

Still, I have been making notes (have such a habit) regarding what and how can be done differently if I'd handle the same task. I don't know what resources are available, though. A few of the options are dependant on what inputs I can get from the system (FoV, especially altered FoV for example).

13

Bugs in older version (2.3.1) / Re: Base attack soldiers placement

« on: January 26, 2011, 03:35:14 pm »

1. Disagree. Your sense of "realism" about where soldiers would be and how the aliens would approach the base leaves much to be desired. Aliens would not walk up to an entrance. They'd be more likely to blow it open and drop down quickly. And putting soldiers "on alert" every time a UFO is within radar range would be exhausting for such a small team.

Well, since they DON'T blow holes up, it's normal to defent the *possible* points of entry. Other than that... Any military base is defended all of the time. And even if you insist that "realism" is everyone sleeping until alerted... AND that getting on alert when the threat is high and real (it's wartime, guys), make it not "withing radar range", but an UFO withing 10 minutes of flight time to the base and heading in its direction.

2. I don't think it takes 30 minutes to move four turns.

For, no. Nine, yes. But ahem... With the overblown hyperboles you just used yourself, nitpicking on whether it's 30 or 26 minutes is *really* missing the point.

3. This does not appear to be a suggested improvement. And all of our aliens are dumb as doorknob. That's the only brand of AI we have.

There was another point that you /decided/ to skip there. Underarmed. Make sure the base attack missions have good ones (above average skills, good equipment). Maximum numbers, too.

----

So what you're asking is for an entirely new map to be created in which the player soldiers sit behind defensive positions and shoot at approaching aliens. If you'd like to, go ahead and create it. I'll even help you work out how to provide a modified .ufo file that others can download to use your base defense map instead of ours. But why would I want to put in so much time and effort on completely changing base defense missions for no real improvement in the game?

I don't say a completely different map. I said, place soldier spawn points close to entrances, not Hell knows where. And well, I'd do it already if I had an idea how to operate that editor.

... But frankly, you calling military base in war time being defended being "much to be desired" in terms of realism makes me think you *live* in a chessboard world...

14

Bugs in older version (2.3.1) / A mountain? :)

« on: January 26, 2011, 03:27:48 pm »

There's something odd in the Great Lakes region. The UFOs can't fly through. Save attached.

15

Bugs in older version (2.3.1) / Re: Aimed Shot doesnt hit

« on: January 26, 2011, 02:58:08 pm »

Simple! 99% accuracy means that you hawe 1:100 chance of missing! This is not a bug! It`s bad luck! Report this as a bug if you miss with 100% chance of hitting!  ;D

Woo, I just had exactly that happen :)
A sniper at short range, showing 100% hit probability, *MISSED* :) The bullet hit the wall to the right (from the sniper's POV) of the alien.

Here's how the shot went.