Personal tools

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - homunculus

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26
Discussion / Re: 2.5 sucks completely
« on: June 22, 2013, 11:54:52 am »
Similar to this post in another thread (just a random post that I remember having seen recently, I don't know the general opinion):
Usually, my problem with larger map is not civilians as much as having to play hide and seek for half an hour if not longer[...]
The one greatest turn-off for me has been the size of maps.

I remember once upon a time there were people in the forum (not me, BTW) who wanted large maps where you would have to travel miles before you meet the aliens, but when people saw them the posts about tedious missions appeared (I don't mean the period when there were too many missions, I mean before that time).

I wouldn't mind a large map now and then, even if just to remind the players of what large maps are like, but I would suggest to try to increase the ratio of smaller and more compact maps in future map-making.

Also, sometimes I feel that the soldier models might be too small for the environment and could be drawn larger in the square they stand on, and that might increase the maps being perceived as large, but that's another topic entirely.

User modifications / Re: [MOD] Easy Radar Rangefinder
« on: June 09, 2013, 01:21:29 pm »
It seems my own UFO:AI is even older, it says:
UFO: Alien Invasion 2.5-dev IA-32 Sep  5 2012 Win32 DEBUG

I put the radarmod.pk3 in UFOAI-2.5-dev\base
and then started ufo.exe in UFOAI-2.5-dev

and the result was the same, no geoscape, etc.

Discussion / Re: 2.5 sucks completely
« on: June 07, 2013, 02:30:39 pm »
As for getting shot in the face when peeking around a corner, I don't see why that shouldn't happen every now and then.
whatever. it's not like I was laying out plans for some shortly upcoming feature.
Oh, well, that seems to miss the point entirely. I meant your soldiers (or the aliens) shouldn't be able to run so long in the enemy reaction fire area. Which should be at least half-way similar to what you seem to be suggesting.
That, and first shot of a burst happening even sooner.

Discussion / Re: 2.5 sucks completely
« on: June 07, 2013, 11:39:37 am »
Not "instant reaction fire" per se but a parallel function, that would likely cost more tu's or come with some other complication.
I don't understand what would be the difference. The aliens would still blast you into cinders as soon as you look around the corner.
currently the tu cost of firing a weapon is said to include 1) assuming firing position/raising the weapon, 2) aiming and finally 3) taking the shot.
That assumes UFO:AI is a computer game. It is not, it is a real world battle between humans and aliens ::)

The last TU cost is missing:

4) recovering from recoil.

Therefore the shot should happen sooner than the total time units cost.

Discussion / Re: 2.5 sucks completely
« on: June 06, 2013, 10:15:02 am »
For anyone who wants reaction fire to happen instantly, would you like the aliens doing the same to you?
As soon as you stick your nose around the corner into the alien's field of vision, you would get blasted by the most time unit intensive firemode of heavy particle beam.

It took some time but at last I remembered the main problem with firing: the burst firemode. In this case it would be more realistic if the first shots of the burst were fired sooner. Like a sequence of single shots (uh, I just tried to model in my head the burst accuracy decrease with sequential shots dependent on the soldier's skill of handling recoil, but I guess that would be too radical change).

Discussion / Re: 2.5 sucks completely
« on: June 04, 2013, 08:46:58 am »
Assuming that reaction fire is not supposed to be the primary means of killing aliens, but an emergency measure to try to save your poorly placed soldiers, I see nothing wrong with the reaction fire as long as it works according to this spec.
If X-COM reaction fire didn't work like that, then I think UFO:AI reaction fire is better.

The only thing that I would debate (your opinion may differ, of course) is that the shots should be fired half-way through the time units needed for the shot. This is because after pulling the trigger and firing the shot there should be some time for recovery.

Along the same lines (of firing half-way), it is possible to do something that has a similar effect to sneaking up to an alien.
It is estimating where the alien has moved far enough not to have time units to shoot when it has line of sight to your soldier.
Then next turn you walk around the alien (to the alien's side or behind) and kill it with a knife.
If the shot was fired half-way through the time units, it would be more difficult to walk around the alien.
Killing aliens with a knife is a bit fun, though.

Discussion / Re: 2.5 sucks completely
« on: June 01, 2013, 10:59:12 pm »
I remember having fired bursts with less ammo than needed to fire all shots, and it just fires less shots.
Someone might confirm it again, if there need to be absolutely certain.

(excellent thread title, by the way, very relaxing ;D)

User modifications / Re: [MOD] Easy Radar Rangefinder
« on: June 01, 2013, 10:55:09 pm »
so, it is for 2.4, then?
i still have 2.4, perhaps i should try it there, no difference for base placements, i guess.

User modifications / Re: [MOD] Easy Radar Rangefinder
« on: May 31, 2013, 06:10:38 pm »
me considering base placement one of the more interesting challenges in the game, i decided to try out this mod to experiment with some possible base placements more quickly.

tried the same way that i am enabling my own battlescape hud mod, with same version of 2.5-dev (that must be somewhat outdated by now), and it did something, but not what i would have expected.
there was blackness where the globe should have been in the geoscape, and the 'create installation' menu was empty, and the rest i didn't check, because that was probably not intended.

any instructions on how to get it to work correctly?

Discussion / Re: PHALANX base design
« on: March 20, 2013, 08:27:04 am »
[...] For goodness sakes, the production workshops shouldn't even have doors to the outside world. [...]
As far as I remember, they didn't have doors in the past, but then, as smoking was prohibited inside, the trade union demanded that they added the doors for the workers.

Adding some weird looking civilians with move 0 as some breakable things in command center and antimatter storage has been suggested before, but perhaps the devs have a better plan and try to avoid such temporary hacks.

About pathfinding, that sounds like it might be a non-trivial problem. I am wondering how difficult would it be to make aliens not know the location of humans unless they see them, or at least not try to move towards humans (but move randomly) unless they can reach them in a few turns? I have read some alien aggressiveness setting being mentioned in the forum, but no idea where it could be found to try lower aggressiveness which might alleviate the problem of getting stuck.

interesting, this must be the first time i have ever read some user complaining about the modern clicking standard not being applied.
the world might be changing, and the clicking standard might be becoming something the users expect, and complain about its violations.

but why are you suggesting differentiation of clicks by their orientation?
i would rather suggest treating left and right clicks equally.
otherwise the result would be conflicting behavior (worse than leaving both as is, in my opinion).

Discussion / Re: Add soldier voices
« on: February 01, 2013, 10:18:16 pm »
well, i would not be so sure i would want voice acting from the community, but some mod that allows to add such self-recorded sounds could be fun for a little while.
i mean, some points where the game would play a sound file with a specific name, and some documentation about what the default words would be.

e.g. when selecting a female soldier with a mouse, i might record some girl saying 'oh, a mouse!'

Tactics / Re: Struggling not to fail
« on: February 01, 2013, 09:39:51 pm »
I did notice that my interceptors got knocked out pretty quickly - any tips on equipping them early on?
if you are not attacking harvesters (those more triangular shaped bigger ones) you should be ok if you use the time arrow that looks like the play button on your media player (not fast forward).

at least this is what it looks like to me.
if that sounds absurd, you can think of game tick and fire rate messing up at higher game speeds.
not confirmed by devs, though.

Discussion / Re: Tiny poll about what do actually contributing mean
« on: January 21, 2013, 08:33:54 pm »
"Eheh, I can imagine the accidents if you release the grenade by error while dragging it."
it would snap back to its original position, as in the inventory window.
with that joke out of the way, back to business:

no, it was not about getting my hud integrated in mainline (huh, i was going somewhat against mainline policies as far as i understand), it was about getting criticism to direct further development (like prioritizing).

the feedback from before the hud was completed (mostly MCR, and some devs) was often useful (except the purely motivational feedback, but i cannot blame people who don't know me), but when it was completed and the feedback would have been most precise and useful there was total silence.

i did get mouse wheel support included more than it used to be in mainline huds, and that was the original point, so it was success in that way.
but developing this particular hud turned out to be a feedback failure.

some questions could be (hidden in the previous post in a less obvious way):
do you get benefits from contributing to ufo:ai in other fields in rl?
do you get useful feedback even if what you do is crap?

like i tried a campaign in wesnoth, and got constructive negative feedback, the result of which was improvement of the campaign, and also a considerable increase in my writing skills which was useful in real life.

Discussion / Re: Tiny poll about what do actually contributing mean
« on: January 21, 2013, 06:43:04 pm »
other than some useless translation contributions the only thing i have done is a hud that goes against the intentions of the real developers in that it enables dragging a grenade from belt to hand in battlescape.
so, how would i answer that poll, like a black sheep?

unwillingness to develop it (or anything else) further comes from:
1) lack of user feedback about the soldier numbers not corresponding to numbers on keyboard (and i don't know if this matters at all, it doesn't for me), or the team panel not reducing its size for a smaller team (less than 5) if a larger team has been used (more than 4).
so, from that i derive that in ufo:ai forum it is nearly impossible to get even the most simple feedback (constructive criticism).
2) learning the ui scripting language does not seem to help me in any other field. i better learn wesnoth scripting, because i get a glimpse of how some scripts work that can be useful in rl. to my knowledge, ufo:ai scripts live more in their own world with their own standards than wesnoth scripts. and, add to that the trouble from some confuncs being called twice when once would be enough, and the confunc that provides the wounds info was called about five times when a soldier with one wound was selected (at least at the time that i scripted).

this might have sounded extremely negative, but really i have a lot of other things to do, and some things failing is natural and there is no need to feel bitter about a failure now and then.

Pages: [1] 2 3 ... 26