Messages

1

FAQ / Re: Reaction fire

« on: January 26, 2013, 12:48:01 am »

It depends on range and cover.

I don't know if having more TUs makes them more likely to fire, I was offering this as an explanation of them performing RF several times a round.

A pistol is more likely to fire because the enemy won't need to spend many TU before you fire but you will still need a good chance to hit.

High accuracy soldiers with low TU, high accuracy and/or spray weapons will do the most RF from what I've heard.

2

FAQ / Re: Reaction fire

« on: January 25, 2013, 10:11:30 pm »

Some tests have shown rapid fire weapons/modes are more likely to fire. Accuracy is a big deal for RF and so accurate weapons or ones that spray will be most likely to fire. The aliens may in general be a tad more accurate than your soldiers and/or using low TU weapons.

It not an angle thing, but some races have better accuracy than humans and/or more TU. Aliens are also more likely than most human players to leave a pile of TUs for reaction fire.

Also 2.5 may not have any improvements on human RF but I think there have been some tweaks and bug fixes to RF overall and alien AI, so what you've seen may be related to old bugs.

I don't think the Needler has any hidden attacks. What you're seeing may be the way a lag sometimes causes it to fire a burst rather than a stream but the game effects are identical. It just seems to be a visual glitch.

3

Discussion / Re: weapons balance in 2.5

« on: January 21, 2013, 08:16:24 pm »

The bolter is a nice gun but quickly becomes a novelty with all the other stuff until you get improved rounds. This is partially because it's so heavy and I think Strength increases more easily now so it may be less of an issue in a game started from scratch.

The high capacity and accuracy of the initial sniper rifles makes them a good staple and the new rounds mean they stay useful in they end game.

The needlers tend to output more rounds than human weapons with plasma and although a bit wasteful this makes them useful for spraying groups and very long range combat. Of course enemy armour greatly affects the usefulness of this technique.

I'd very much like to see the a plasma sabot for the shotgun. I was also thinking maybe in the very late game a shotgun round made from needler ammo and a one-shot magnetic pulser instead of a powder charge. The range and accuracy would be horrible but it sprays the nearby area with needles without the need for a heavy alien needler.

4

Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Unable to target UFOs

« on: January 20, 2013, 10:08:58 pm »

I can't see that Harvester at all. One tends to show up around the Middle East after a bit and there is a Fighter to the southeast of my Africa Base.

5

Discussion / Re: The Strong Taman (Minor spoilers)

« on: January 20, 2013, 08:26:12 pm »

And seems the fact you checked the implementation led you to the wrong conclusion. Noone said that the race was manipulated to create "strong tamans", the new teamdef was only a currently available solution to have species with differentiated skills, technical stuff only.

So the were made to test the differentiated skills rather than the differentiated skills being added to make them possible?

a) This is a temporary solution (as geever said).

All I really wanted to check.

a)b) The only way you would ever know they have adjusted strength stats is by looking at the code.

Not true. Multiplayer stats and/or just doing the math on end game items reveals it. The fact they carry the same weapons as Ortnok and that those weapons are very heavy in human hands is what caused me to look closely at the stats, not the other way around.

c) This is not a sim. It's a tactical-strategy game. Just because the story prefers a plausible future over jedi knights does not mean it is a sim.

Splitting hairs, most people wouldn't think of Warcraft 3 as a sim but the point is they'll still notice if an AI doesn't need lumber.

6

Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Unable to target UFOs

« on: January 20, 2013, 07:50:49 pm »

I did. You shouldn't eve need to start the time.

Wait... Harvester? You're waiting for the Harvester to show up? What about the Fighter by Africa Base?

7

Discussion / Re: On promoting secondary characters, e.g. the staff when base is under attack

« on: January 20, 2013, 01:48:29 pm »

Check the existing TODOs/Proposals. There's a good bit on containment breach and the other base attack options.

I heard the idea of dropship inventory being a possibility, if it goes in that's a sign the armoury is a possibility.

I also see aggressive civilians on the proposals which would pave the way for defenders outside the active squad.

On the matter of visibility. Apparently cameras are supposed to have somebody manning ops in an ideal system. This might be a reasonable role for non-combat personnel.

8

Discussion / Re: The Strong Taman (Minor spoilers)

« on: January 20, 2013, 01:43:59 pm »

Not completely. The Ortnok can handle the heavy artillery just fine and even weak Taman could use a PB pistol. It seems more to keep the endgame varied until psi, more races, and more equipment are introduced. Moreover I think the current endgame was balanced based on Taman using these weapons and this was a faster solution than re-designing the endgame while working on weight.

9

Discussion / Re: New encumbrance/TU system

« on: January 20, 2013, 01:17:30 pm »

I think the UI could use some work but with the most recent tweaks this system has come a long way. Speed is valuable again and Strength is now very useful. I complained a bit early on but I want to say I feel like most of the nessecary changes have been made.

For Medkits I'd rather see some kind of Perks/Feats system that provide such a bonus for medics. They also are pretty nice right now after some ups and downs. If you remember a combat round is only a few seconds the speed of healing is remarkably fast. Actually I'd like to see a fuller kit that requires two hands, weighs more, takes a bit more TU and heals a bit more as an option.

10

Discussion / Re: On promoting secondary characters, e.g. the staff when base is under attack

« on: January 20, 2013, 01:11:28 pm »

I think you bit off a bit more than you can chew this time.

No really, it all sounds and looks good but that's a massive outline. Some of the stuff is about stuff not directly related (containment/attack options) and some of it is dependant on people going along with other parts in the form you propose.

The reduction formulas are unnecessary. 60 people seems to be a pretty full base (though with labs and workshops going in increments of 10, how did you get 12 and 24? I've never had more than 4 pilots at a base either.) but they don't all have to be there. There's more than 8 or 10 people in most cities, most of them just cleared away from the aliens already. Likewise some of your personnel are going to be off base on their day off, doing off-site work, or safely whisked away to safer shelters as the UFO approaches. Simply add the spawn points to the lab, etc. and let the map generator add workers/scientists semi-randomly like it does civilians. It'll be capped at the number of spawns or your total workers.

Now I don't actually think you need any bonuses for those workers. An base attack is not really something to be concerned about right now. It's almost like them giving you a UFO. No risk to civilians and not much chance they'll weaken your base if you complete the mission. Also right now there's no preassure on your supply of workers and scientists. Just let them be killable. The point of base defense should be trying to keep them alive. The reactor and containment stuff will be good but I think just making the workers and scientists "base civilians" would go a long way.

If they are too have skills and benefits let them occur during non-combat.

The extra soldiers, the armoury, maybe. A bit much but I could see it. The armory would be waiting on the dropship inventory system to be implemented first I'd think.

11

Discussion / The Strong Taman (Minor spoilers)

« on: January 20, 2013, 12:54:23 pm »

I'm not liking the new strong Taman. They just feel wrong, not overpowered but just shoe-horned in and trying to make things work that maybe logically shouldn't.

They were added recently as a way to let this race use the now heavy endgame equipment, but I think that's just awkward. In terms of setting it makes me wonder why they even have multiple races if they can just tweak one race so far. In terms of gameplay it makes me feel like they are cheating. There is no penalty for this, no explanation, just no gun so big a Taman cannot lift it.

It seems like we have this very nice detailed sim but as soon as that internal logic becomes inconveneiant for the aliens they just cheat and dramatically so at that. I mean this isn't a small increase in Strength, it's the difference between some of the lowest stats in the game and some of the highest.

Rather than just pumping a ton of steroids into one species it'd be nice to see some advancing of the templates in all races in all skills as the game goes on. Or just split the race in question in to two types, one weak but mental that appears early but isn't dangerous until psi and one that favors strength more but doesn't have as extreme mental abilities. Or both, anything but the game waving it in your face that it doesn't have to obey logic or precedent.

I understand the end game in undergoing heavy revision near constantly and there will be placeholders but I just want to state that this seems like a bad approach for a final system.

12

Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: [2.5_dev_13/01/19] Aircraft radar unable to find mission on ground

« on: January 20, 2013, 12:07:11 pm »

Odd.

This contradicts my experiences with alien bases which have both times been right under the nose of my main HQ but weren't discovered until interceptors passed over them. I believe each detection source has a chance of detecting things each tick and they stack. I think it also gets better the closer they are to source/distance of the radar grid. So I think a base detects at half it's max range as well as an interceptor does as half its, so major bases should be the best but more eyes in the sky have always worked for me.

I know that isn't directly useful but I'm basically saying this sounds buggish since it doesn't match other behavior I've seen.

13

Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Unable to target UFOs

« on: January 20, 2013, 12:03:53 pm »

Here it is. This is from when I loaded my previous save, shot down one of the new UFOs and got the same problem.

Interesting bit is I noticed this:

2013/01/19 02:02:29 CP_SpawnRescueMission: UFO was also destroyed.
2013/01/19 02:16:55 ********************
2013/01/19 02:16:55 ERROR: AIR_CRASHED should not be visible anywhere

UFO was also destroyed. Not sure about that. I did in fact destroy a Fighter in my depot preping to recover one of these. I don't know it was caused by that or by me downing the Gunboat or something else.

14

Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Unable to target UFOs

« on: January 19, 2013, 11:24:01 am »

This happens again as soon as I shot down a UFO in the save before it. Wondering if it may have to do with shooting down... I think they're called Gunboats I haven't actually recovered or researched one yet. The incredibly scary things that show up around the point my save file is at.

15

Bugs in stable version (2.5) / Re: Unable to target UFOs

« on: January 19, 2013, 09:12:37 am »

Console log reads: ERROR: AIR_CRASHED should not be visible anywhere

Attached the save since I've discovered this is only affected the one save at the moment.