Messages

1

User modifications / Re: delaybetweenshots - Need More Granularity - And More Suggestions

« on: January 20, 2016, 01:51:40 pm »

Standard size/weight alienmaterials continued.

Using real world weight values of similar things as point of reference.

base reference for size/weight ratio - shiva 20mm cannon

Real world 20mm M61 vulcan aircraft cannon weighs over 100kg without feeding system, so probably half more with feeding system, + 100kg more with 100 rounds ammo load (so 1x 20mm round = 1kg). So size 40 for craft weapons = 250kg weight. For the purpose of size/weight ratio of alienmaterials required to build alien craft weapons, I use x0.8. For example, pbeam size 90, weight 562.5kg, x0.8 = 450,000. For missiles, adjust to account for propellant/explosives/plasma/whatever.

weapon name - weapon size - ammo size - ammo amount - AMT req weapon - AMT req ammo

shiva 40 10 100

sparrow 110 40 7
tr20 90 10 12

pbeam 90 10 10 450,000
alauncher am 110 60 6 550,000 375,000
alauncher hb 110 50 6 550,000 250,000

alaser 40 10 40

The alien launcher is basically a giant cannon that fires dumb missiles at high velocities. The sparrow missile rack is different in that it weighs almost nothing, most of the weight comes from the missiles themselves. But what determines on which hardpoint weapons can be installed is size, and that's also the only size/weight value I have to work with now, so I'm leaving it alone until size/weight can be distinguished in craft weapons.

There's two different types of alien shield plating, they both have the same size 50, but different materials requirement - 150 vs 250. I'm just using best guess here to avoid changing size value since maybe it's important for hardpoint installation.



All values I could find that I changed to match alienmaterials/size/weight 1,000 = 1 kg system. Derived from (current item weight x 0.8) to reflect heavier weight of alienmaterials vs size of standard item versions where applicable, and principle that not the whole item/weapon/ammo is made of alienmaterials. It's a basic abstraction of all these ideas. In order from research.ufo.


require_for_production alienmaterials #

RPG hybrid ammo 1000
Bolter AM ammo 700

Monoknife 240

GL plasma ammo 1200

Plasma pistol 1200
Plasma pistol ammo 160
Plasma blaster 4000
Plasma blaster ammo 800
Plasma blade 800
Plasma grenade 480
Plasma rifle 2720
Plasma rifle ammo 320

EP assault rifle ammo 250
EP MG ammo 750
EP sniper ammo 250
EP shotgun ammo 300

Needler 4800
Heavy needler 7200
Needler ammo 800

Coilgun 6080
Coilgun ammo 900

Particle beam pistol 1040
Particle beam cannon 4800
Particle beam rifle 2720

Raptor 46700000
Dragon 23400000
Starchaser 26700000
Stingray 33400000

Alien aircraft plating 250000
Alien polymer armour 437500
Particle beam weapon 450000
Alien launcher 550000
AM missile 375000
Hybrid missile 250000


Recommended base storage capacity.

Per storage building = 350M
Per base = 5x storage buildings max = 1.75B

This allows about 10-30 alien ships disassembly before requiring extra storage capacity, and 50-150 ships disassembly at max capacity, if nothing else is stored in base. That's not how it's actually going to work, since materials/weapons/items will get used up to make new ships, equip them, make rifles/ammo/etc. It's going to work pretty much the same as it does now, except with a new size/weight value system.

I haven't changed any other size values for stuff that don't require alienmaterials, but that must be done otherwise we could store thousands more of those items due to new storage capacity value. That's what I'm going to do next. Oh yeah, forgot, I'm using 2.6dev nightlybuild 2016-1-15.

2

User modifications / Re: delaybetweenshots - Need More Granularity - And More Suggestions

« on: January 20, 2016, 09:41:30 am »

An attempt for standard alienmaterials weight/size system.

OK, so qty limit is signed 32bit, so ~2B max. Doesn't really matter since base storage cap is much lower than that. Base storage uses size rather than weight, easy to convert qty. So, 10,000 / 300 * 10,000,000 = 334,000,000 storage capacity for 1 storage building. Should put cap on number of storage buildings to avoid the s32bit limit, 6 should do. This new storage capacity system probably affects all other items that have both size and weight, I'll see how that goes. For a start, weight should be equal to size, only for storage purposes. If item is bigger in size than weight, then it's also possible to do that, I guess. For example, assault rifle size 20 weight 2,800. With new system, size is obviously bigger than weight, the rifle is not one piece of solid mass. For stored alienmaterials, there's no weight currently but description says it's very heavy, so size would be smaller than weight if it had weight. This then means items which can be made from it, but are used in existing weapons like EP ammo or RPG rockets for example, would weigh more than the standard version, but be of the same size obviously because the weapon itself doesn't change. This becomes significant when a soldier can only carry so much weight, i.e. more of the weaker ammo, or less of the more powerful ammo.

QTY alienmaterials from disassembly of alien ships, based directly on current (qty) numbers in components.ufo. And some example qty for ship/item build in workshop, also based directly on alienmaterials requirement for human ships, and/or item weight (encased plasma ammo in this example) as relationship to 1,000 = 1kg.

scout (300) = 10,000,000
fighter (430) = 14,400,000
harvester (750) = 25,000,000
supply (480) = 16,000,000
gunboat (700) = 23,400,000
corrupter (1100) = 36,700,000
bomber (1400) = 46,700,000

dragon (700) = 23,400,000
starchaser (800) = 26,700,000
singray (1000) = 33,400,000

raptor = (1400) = 46,700,000


assault rifle ep ammo 500 (item weight) = 250
machine gun ep ammo 1500 = 750
sniper ep ammo 500 = 250
shotgun ep ammo 600 = 300

Using half qty for ammo, reasoning is not the whole bullet is made of it, not the whole cartridge is made of it, some is used by explosives/plasma/propellant/whatever.

I just tried it with a 68% harvester, got about 23M alienmaterials from it (lucky RNG I guess). UI doesn't display numbers properly (can't see the whole numbers, it gets cut off), but otherwise it works fine for when building stuff or getting alienmaterials from disassembly. I'll keep fiddling with it until I get something solid, then maybe I'll make it available as a mod.

3

User modifications / Re: delaybetweenshots - Need More Granularity - And More Suggestions

« on: January 20, 2016, 07:26:56 am »

Alien Materials size/weight should be standardized.

For example, Raptor requires 1,400, while various encased ammo require 5. Alienmaterials size 1. Ratio of 1,400:5, or 280 ammo equivalent to build a whole Raptor dropship. That's completely inconsistent in my opinion. Don't know if materials should have weight, but let's use weight as basis for consistency. I propose:

- 1,000 alienmaterials per 1 kg (so 1g per 1 alienmaterial)

This means alien ships would provide tons more materials, but then building ships (and other items that require materials) would also require tons more materials in consistent proportions. For example, let's say a Stilleto weighs around 20t, so materials equivalent 20,000,000 (doesn't require alienmaterials but that's our starting point for weight). Let's say dropships weigh about 2x and up, so 40t and more according to passenger capacity and whatnot. Based on alien craft descriptions, that gives us craft weight, therefore alienmaterials provided from disassembly. Aliens are likely much more efficient in their designs and constructions, so alien ships would provide less materials than humans would use to build their own. For example, if Stilleto is equivalent size as alien fighter, and if Stilleto required alienmaterials to build, even a brand new alien fighter couldn't provide enough materials to build a new Stilleto, maybe something like 50-80% only, or 10,000,000-16,000,000 alienmaterials.

Ammo and other things that require alienmaterials would require proportional quantities based on that standard weight/qty ratio I proposed. Some leeway for design decisions, such as is the whole cartridge made of it, or just the bullet, or even just part of the bullet? So for example, if 1 round of standard assault rifle ammo (just the bullet, not the whole cartridge) weighs around 4g, this gives us a ratio of ship:bullet 5,000,000:1 (individual bullets, 4g per bullet), 167,000:1 (30 round mag, 120g per mag), 50,000:1 (100 round mag for the hmg, 400g per mag), and so forth. Obviously, we could make thousands of rounds of ammo, but then ships would require a proportional amount of materials to build too, so it would still be a choice between making ships and making ammo/weapons/items, and of course alien ships would provide less than sufficient materials to begin with. To maintain consistency, total required alienmaterials should be less than total weight of the item produced. Production time could be adjusted to account for transformation complexity of alienmaterials from one form to another, such as from a sheet that comes from alien ships, to a complex shape that make up a rifle, and so forth. If we build a ship from sheet that comes from a ship, then there's much less transformation involved, production time should reflect that too. In other words, it takes proportionately more time to make different shapes, and proportionately less time to make similar shapes. But then we're making a ship, it takes a whole lot of time compared to making just a few mags of ammo. And it takes tons more materials to make a ship, so that's still a difficult decision for the player.

I realize this would probably require a significant overhaul of the existing qty system, but I believe it would significantly improve gameplay. There isn't any coding involved, I think it's just *.ufo modding, so I guess I could do it myself. I'll see if I can get off my lazy bum. I have to ask if there's arbitrary qty limits on game items, or is it just the 32 bit limit? I don't want to start just to find out I can't actually set alienmaterials qty to millions. Just a quick calc, if it's just 32bit limit, it's possible to disassemble about 100 alien ships before going over, and that would take a long time already, even if we make nothing out of the materials and we just keep piling it up.

4

User modifications / delaybetweenshots - Need More Granularity - And More Suggestions

« on: January 15, 2016, 02:17:16 am »

Value for delay is 1000/v_int

I assume delay is in ms?

This means RPS (rounds per second) can only be defined as integer, i.e. 1 RPS, 2 RPS, 3 RPS, nothing in between. At higher values for machine guns for example, it's the same thing, but less obvious, i.e. 600 RPM (rounds per minute), 660 RPM, 720 RPM, etc, in steps of 60 RPM or 1 RPS.

I want more granularity. If delay is indeed in ms, is it possible to have direct control of the delay ms value, rather than through a division by integer?

5

Feature Requests / Re: Weapon Damage And Size, Ideas

« on: November 01, 2012, 07:24:13 pm »

Thanks for the reply. I'm happy to know there's something going on with item weight. Size didn't look right when I looked at it as weight. I look forward to see how that works in the game. I'll try 2.5dev next and see what's new. And thanks for the clarifications on the things I got wrong.

You're right that I'd like more realism. But I don't mean full-on realism where even the scale is right. I'm just looking for the feeling of realism. I still see some room for range/damage dropoff, with tactical value in it, even though we're dealing with very short distances. It doesn't have to be complicated. It could be a fixed linear dropoff value for all weapons, at max range whatever that is. Say 20%. Let's take the sniper for example. For an unarmored/lightly armored target, one shot does it at any range. But due to 20% damage drop at max range, a more heavily armored target takes a few more shots, but point-blank he still goes down, but then I have to get close. If we still want to stay far but still use a snipe tactic against that heavily armored target, then we use a more powerful weapon that does as much point-blank damage as the sniper even with a 20% damage drop at max range. On the other hand, I see your point and I agree. It was just an idea and the game is fun just like it is now.

What about critchance/critdamage? Any chance of seeing this? That too would give the feeling of realism as it would simulate hitting critical body parts, or bypassing armor so full damage is applied. Doesn't have to be complicated either. A single fixed value would do it. Since there's already in-game messages when soldiers/aliens get killed, a message about crit could be implemented easily.

Do you know if we'll be able to mod item weight through ufo files too?

6

Feature Requests / Weapon Damage And Size, Ideas

« on: November 01, 2012, 05:15:22 pm »

Hi, first post.

First off, UFO:AI is the most complex iteration of any XCom clone I've played. So great work on that. Second, it's a real genuine honest-to-goodness game that can hang with the best of them, in my opinion. So congrats, you've done it. This is a suggestion post and sometimes these can be seen as a criticism of what's already there. But please don't take it like that. I genuinely want this game to be better than it already is. To be more fun. So on to the suggestions.

Basically, this game is all about weapons. So it follows that weapons should have a special place. I've looked a bit at the ufo files for weapon definitions, damage, range, etc. As it stands, it's simplistic. There's one value for damage, one value for range, one value for penetration, etc. And I get the feeling when I play that those are static values up to range, so that even if I'm at max range, I can still dish out the same damage. Don't get me wrong, it works real good as is. I'm just establishing what is so I can justify my suggestions of what I want it to become. Here goes.

I propose:

- High and low values for damage and penetration
- Damage and penetration dropoff based on range
- Point-blank max damage and max penetration

I don't know if critical hits are implemented so I propose they are. So we'd have:

- Critical hits based on weapon and ammo characteristics
- Critical hit chance based on accuracy
- Critical damage based on range

It's assumed that damage is already based on weapon and ammo characteristics. As we can see, the main factor in these suggestions is range. And this gives coders an easy way to implement these suggestions by implementing a x/range function (where x is the value that gets modified by range), and then point all damage/crit values to this one, and we'd end up with a natural set of high/low damage/crit output values even if we only use one damage value to begin with. You'd have to implement a critchance/critdamage function as well if you so choose.

This critchance/critdamage values could have:

- Critchance %
- Critdamage * or +

The low damage value could have:

- Dropoff based on range, and based on damage
- Min damage based on damage, which itself is based on weapon and ammo characteristics

The advantage of implementing only a x/range function is that we can use existing damage values, and avoid having to modify all those ufo files. I'm modifying ufo files myself and it's tedious work. But then maybe coding is just as tedious, I dunno.

If we wanted to be fancy, we could use an existing value as a skew for damage/crit dropoff rate within range. Penetration value could do it. The higher the pen, the slower the dropoff, the higher the low damage/crit values at range. If pen is used for skew, then some fancy code must be implemented to allow pen to be skewed at range too, if you so choose. But I can live with static penetration at range so no biggy.


Second part of the suggestions. Comprehensive re-work of relationship between damage, ammo capacity, and size. Let me give you an example of what I mean here. Take the laser weapons for example. They all use the same clip so the total energy pool they use is the same. I'm thinking of the First Law of Thermodynamics.

I assume that size is a simplified amalgam to define volume/weight/encumbrance in the game? I also assume that size is what determines if a soldier can carry the weapon according to his strength? I also assume that size is a linear value, not an exponential value? For the sake of argument, I will assume weapon size stated in ufo files includes ammo size when weapon is loaded. Also for the sake of argument, I assume an energy/damage conversion rate of 1:1, and a linear relationship between damage/size of converter/laser. Correct me if I'm wrong on any of this.

Pistol:
- 26 shots
- 36 damage
- Total damage (energy pool) per clip: 936
- Size: 10 (7 for clip so weapon size 3)

Rifle:
- 16 shots
- 42 damage
- Total damage per clip: 672
- Size: 35 (-7=28)

Heavy:
- 6 shots
- 55/52 damage
- Total damage per clip: 330/312
Size: 50 (-7=43)

Something's not right. The total pool of energy is the same, but the rate of energy expenditure varies significantly as damage output varies only slightly. So this can mean only one thing - more energy is wasted exponentially as the rate of energy expenditure grows bigger/faster. Since the First Law says no energy can be created or lost, then the only possible answer is that the energy that is not converted to light by the laser is instead converted to heat within the laser itself, with obvious dire consequences since we're talking about loads of energy especially in the case of the heavy laser. Put differently, if energy loss is about 60% for the heavy laser, and if the remaining energy that gets converted into light causes 55/52 damage, then the lost energy should cause about twice that damage as heat to the user. Unless, of course, the heavy laser is heavily shielded/cooled but then that obviously increases weapon size moreso than just the increase in size of the energy/light conversion system. The heavy laser description only says something like "consumes ammo like crazy" so there isn't really an indication of waste here, only an indication that it consumes ammo very quickly, presumably due to the correspondingly high damage output.

With regards to size, this should be consistent as well. If the heavy laser wastes a lot of energy as heat, then it must be heavily shielded or cooled or both, then this should be represented with a corresponding increase in size. Also, if the heavy laser doesn't have a heat shield/cooling, then we run into the problem of overheating, then we run into the problem of rate of fire, and possibly the problem of reload time too. The problem of size can also be found in other weapons like the assaultrifle/machinegun (the ammo specifically), and the plasma weapons (again the ammo specifically), to name a few.

Finally, when size is re-worked into a comprehensive relationship between damage, ammo capacity, heatshielding/cooling (all within their respective technologies, i.e. bullets, laser, plasma, etc), and base storage capacity, we end up with a new difficulty in managing all those weapons and ammo with respect to how much damage we can bring on the battlefield. For example, a solider who carries a machine gun instead of an assault rifle brings a whole lot more damage to the fight, but would also have to be much stronger, and this weapon/ammo would also take much more space in base storage.


Here's an example of a re-work for lasers, based on total energy pool of the same clip for the pistol, size based on pistol size and on energy conversion factor for damage output, all using a fixed waste ratio to keep energy pool constant and keep size consistent:

Pistol:
- 26 shots
- 36 damage
- Pool: 936
- Size: 3+7 = 10

Rifle:
- 16 shots
- 58 damage (was 42)
- Pool: 936 (was 672)
- Size: 5+7 = 12 (was 35)

Heavy:
- 6 shots
- 156 damage (was 55/52)
- Pool: 936 (was 330/312)
- Size: 13+7 = 20 (was 50)

If ammo size is not included in weapon size, then we have respective sizes of 10, 16, and 43. As we can see, if we keep energy pool constant, and we keep existing shots, we end up with an absurd damage output for the heavy laser, but that's all kosher since we obey the First Law here. Instead, if we decide to justify the drop in damage output efficiency by the increased waste energy as damage output goes up, then we have to increase weapon size proportionally according to some factor. But one thing is obvious, the original numbers don't make sense since all three lasers use the same energy pool.

One potential easy solution here is to just increase shots for the heavy laser to avoid giving it uber damage. 9 shots instead of 6 gives us 104 damage instead of 156. But if damage for the heavy laser gets cut, then its size must get cut too, to about twice that of the rifle, so 32 instead of 43. And then once we've looked at lasers and start looking at other weapons, we run into small problems. For example, the sniper rifle does 105 damage for a size 60. Compared to the original heavy laser with a damage of 55/52, there's no contest. No use spending all that research time, production time, and credits on something that doesn't even do half the damage of a sniper rifle that can be had right from the start of the game. But compared to the re-worked heavy laser above, the heavy laser wins hands down. Maybe we can justify this as the difference between old and new tech. And the difference doesn't stop at their respective characteristics, but also price. The sniper rifle and its ammo cost 1,300 and 85, while the heavy laser and its ammo cost 4,000 and 210. Their producetime is different too, lots for the ammo, not so much for the weapons.

When we look at the assault rifle and machine gun and their respective ammo, the size discrepancy problem is even more obvious. Shots/damage/size; AR: 30/42/3, MG: 100/45/6. And the weapon size for both is 20. Here we have to justify doing a little more damage with a bullet that is about 60% smaller, so we can fit 70 more bullets in a magazine that's only twice the size. And we have to justify that an AR is just as big as an MG. In a re-work, the MG's mags would be size 10, and the MG's size would be around 40.

Just for giggles, I looked at my effectiveness for different loadouts of all my soldiers. So I outfitted them all with machine guns and one extra ammo clip for each, and just trashed the place without even reloading. So now on small missions, no extra clip, just a machine gun for everybody. Why would I give them anything else? Maybe I'll run into aliens that the machine gun can't touch, but I doubt it. The machine gun rules the battlefield.


I'll stop here. Maybe I'm not the only one who's suggested something like this. I did a search and didn't find anything exactly like that, but maybe I didn't search hard enough. Anyway, the re-work of relationships between damage/ammo/size can all be done with ufo files, but that's tedious work. I'm going to do some of that for my own use, and maybe I'll end up sharing what I did with the rest of you, if I think my fiddling isn't too shabby. But then I don't really know how aliens are fitted for missions so I could end up facing uber aliens carrying loads of ammo right in the first mission, if I somehow end up increasing the amount of ammo those starter aliens can hold as I fiddle with their size. The damage/crit/range has to be done by coders, however. I don't do that.

So what do you guys think? Is there an interest and is there already something like that going on?