Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Tarran]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Big hint if you're having trouble: If you don't think the MkII is worth it, you should probably stay away from it, because as soon as you activate it, the aliens send in a *huge* force of reinforcements to compensate. They *really* want that thing dead.

...Oh really?

Well, it would have been nice to get a message or something telling me that! I mean, how could I have possibly known that I'm simultaneously screwing myself over while I'm trying to help myself?

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

The captured Sectopods are not re-patriated until the aliens breach the base, so if you can slow them down...

Slowing them down would be very difficult without huge casualties due to how the base is shaped.

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Or, you can even try to take out the captured Sectopods before they're activated.

Tried that with Gatling Laser dude.

He ended up with a laser burn on his everything (AKA the Sectopods activated the turn he got a shot, he fired, he died instantly).

[Kyzrati]

Spoiler (click to show/hide)

Big hint if you're having trouble: If you don't think the MkII is worth it, you should probably stay away from it, because as soon as you activate it, the aliens send in a *huge* force of reinforcements to compensate. They *really* want that thing dead.

...Oh really?

Well, it would have been nice to get a message or something telling me that! I mean, how could I have possibly known that I'm simultaneously screwing myself over while I'm trying to help myself?

Heh, well, you're not supposed to know that. It's... a secret; the aliens aren't going to announce their every plan. I suppose I could add a warning message that you just potentially screwed yourself over, but really I intended for the MkII to be much more useful than it seems to be. Maybe with the latest update its cannon will be a bit more deadly against hardened targets like Sectopods.

He ended up with a laser burn on his everything (AKA the Sectopods activated the turn he got a shot, he fired, he died instantly).

Oops... Explosives are useful. I like to throw proxies into the hangar, too, which will weaken them as soon as they move. There's also the new remote charge, which is pretty powerful, but I haven't played Area 51 since I added it. Now that I check, I didn't even give you any charges to start with in that particular mission--they're in the base stores.

[Heron TSG]

On the ancient topic of to scroll or not to scroll: I can't imagine a Cydonia mission fitting in a 60x60 frame, unless it were a huge tunnel system heading almost straight down.

[Kyzrati]

I was going to bring that topic up again soon, because over the months I've decided that there will be no scrolling. It's really not essential, since X-COM maps are 60x60, which already fits in the current window (the original Cydonia was 60x60). People see the window and assume it's showing less than the original X-COM, but it's really the *exact* same area.

The only reason identical terrain designs will not quite fit in X@COM is that walls now take up an actually space, so it'll be slightly more cramped. But the extra potential for destruction will solve that quite easily

If someone wants to design big maps, it will be easy to have "connected areas" where you get your squad to one location on the map, and are able to transition your forces to another map, similarly to how Cydonia was handled in the original, only they did that for vertical purposes. In X@COM, there is no vertical limit to the number of levels (the latest scenario has *six* stacked levels, and future ones will include both underground and above-ground in the same map).

Another argument for the 60x60 max (mentioned before) is that X-COM mechanics and gameplay are geared towards a certain level size.

I know that people will like to mod in larger maps, and a map of endless size would be possible, but will have to be played out in areas no large than 60x60 at a time. Seems like a sufficient compromise. The interface will be much smoother if there's no scrolling--It can be difficult enough for some players to get used to already without making certain parts of the map not visible at certain times, and zipping around the map to show different events.

[MaximumZero]

Is there any way we could get a "Zoom to" feature upon seeing a new enemy? That'd be really nice.

[Kyzrati]

I did just post on the blog about what features you'd like to see in the map area. I was planning on copy posting here for discussion. Here's the content:

I'd like to get some input regarding map dynamics. What do you think will be fun/useful information to have on the map in the form of optional overlays and extra indicators, etc.? Things that can be activated temporarily (or automatically, when applicable) for extra feedback. Currently (as requested for an earlier release), there's already a threat highlighter ('e'), which can be fairly useful in messy situations with numerous targets on multiple levels, as well as several forms of FOV highlighting (yet to be improved). Other ideas:

• Unit names and/or types shown next to their symbol
• Item names shown next to their symbol
• Building/terrain area highlighting w/names (later the map editor will ideally be able to name buildings and terrain blocks, so they can be referred to in the game and used as a reference)

So if you can think of something else you'd like to see, speak up now. (This question is a precursor to a discussion on HUD info, which will in some cases be dependent on what the map can be used for.)

The threat highlighter could be what you're looking for right now, although it doesn't highlight automatically--I'll add auto-highlight to the list of features to add.

[adwarf]

How were you thinking of doing the name, and stuff? Having it just hover on the map would be a bit annoying. I'd suggest a hover over the enemy, ally, item, etc. kind of deal, or a toggle-able button that shows it. Having it on the screen all the time would make things a bit cramped, and messy.

[Kyzrati]

Yes, it would be a key that you press, and a button on the HUD, that would show the names, all of them, right next to the unit or item on the map. It wouldn't be there permanently. That would never work

What I'm referring to are temporary indicators that you can pull up, to help you get more information. Those name indicators would quickly pop up next to their respective objects in an animated fashion, and disappear as soon as you're done with them.

I need to know what other information you want (nothing permanent or intrusive), so fire up that imagination!

[adwarf]

Kind of information ... I'd say type of alien, and threat level (How tough they are)

[sambojin]

Wow, that's some pretty fast feedback. Makes you sort of love roguelikes in development more than any other game-type. It makes me love 'em anyway.

If z-levels are completely unlimited, is there a teleporter function for maps? Whilst you might not be able to have enemies wandering around in visual sight (ie: they're on another z-level entirely, unconnected except by teleport squares), I guess there could be maps designed that are essentially larger than 60x60, just split between z-levels. No LOS, but otherwise doable.

On the WH40k thing, this is sort of how I see a marine squad working. Or any elite 40k squad that needs objectives completed, alien or not.  Drop in, shoot up, get out. X@COM : WH40K Drop-pod Assault.
I can't see it NOT working.
Plus, super-multi-tile stompaz and small titans just make it funky.

[Areyar]

Hot stuff! 
Downloading the demo now.

How about ASCOM or ASCIIM ?
Although that last one makes me hear it in a Cartman-esque whiny-voice.

A question about destructible terrain and explosions.
Do AoE weapons in your interpretation of XCom have spherical AoE and corresponding terrain damage?

As for limiting yourself to X-com content.
You will be reintroducing your additional aliens etc and randomly generated content as options to later extensions?
Not knowing the characteristics of your opponents is exciting/scary.

BTW First thing I thought when I opened this thread was: this looks very much like I remember Lasersquad.

[Kyzrati]

Wow, that's some pretty fast feedback. Makes you sort of love roguelikes in development more than any other game-type. It makes me love 'em anyway.

If z-levels are completely unlimited, is there a teleporter function for maps? Whilst you might not be able to have enemies wandering around in visual sight (ie: they're on another z-level entirely, unconnected except by teleport squares), I guess there could be maps designed that are essentially larger than 60x60, just split between z-levels. No LOS, but otherwise doable.

On the WH40k thing, this is sort of how I see a marine squad working. Or any elite 40k squad that needs objectives completed, alien or not.  Drop in, shoot up, get out. X@COM : WH40K Drop-pod Assault.
I can't see it NOT working.
Plus, super-multi-tile stompaz and small titans just make it funky.

Yeah, that's definitely an advantage of roguelikes. After all the fanbase is usually so small that if you can't please the few you have, in the end you'll have none at all!

There is a teleporter function; it's already been tested and built into the pathfinding routines. That's a good idea to connect levels through teleporting only--it'd work fine. The only limitation I can see to level scale is computational, since the entire map is updating while things are happening, so a slower computer could have trouble with a giant level filled with huge groups of units. I'm not sure what that limit would be, but there's room for some eventual optimization if necessary.

I think WH40k is a great idea--thought about it a couple times today after seeing that post Seems like it'd be easy to do a pretty decent job with the X@COM engine.

A question about destructible terrain and explosions.
Do AoE weapons in your interpretation of XCom have spherical AoE and corresponding terrain damage?

Yeah, unlike the original AOE is "sort of" spherical by default. I say sort of because vertical damage propagation is controlled separately by a dampening variable, which I use to flatten out explosions and make them a bit elliptical. You could use that same variable to constrain explosions entirely to a single level, like the original did, or permit them to be a full sphere. Personally I think explosions need to be at least a little bit 3D, but not perfectly so since that would cause way too much destruction, hence the current settings.

Check out this old post for some screenshots showing AOE damage distribution on multiple floors.

[Areyar]

Your Quickdraw-post also shows a pretty sequence of screenshots of an explosion as seen from the side,
in this example the ratio is about 7:1, could be the damping is exacerbated by the ceiling and roof here.
I assume different materials have different resistance to being blown away by weaponsfire and explosions, wooden fences to stone walls to solid ground.
 
You are right to have not too much vertical damage in explosions, better fits the x-com legacy.
(personally, I was pretty annoyed at this mechanic in X-com though. )
Having a HE pack go off in a barn and only searing the floor of the level above was just weird. (IIRC the top floors could end up hovering if the walls were all shot out, so...)

just thinking.
Would there be trouble with (rising) fireballs and/or animated mushroom clouds be for explosions? (fire damage only)

edit: Got seriously annihilated a several times in the last several hours. . .
I noticed I could block the movement of the big colossus, then it detonated!!
I know you wrote the aliens have no team-strategy nor team-vision yet, but it still feels like the enemy can see through walls.

[Kyzrati]

Your Quickdraw-post also shows a pretty sequence of screenshots of an explosion as seen from the side,
in this example the ratio is about 7:1, could be the damping is exacerbated by the ceiling and roof here.

Yeah, the ceiling and the roof are definitely blocking a fair bit themselves (see below). The vertical power falloff also compounds with blocking objects, so it'll seem even more flat. I believe 7:1 was actually about the ratio I was shooting for
Primarily because anything less means a single blaster could easily engulf an entire house in one shot, including the roof and anything on it, which is a bit unfair.

I assume different materials have different resistance to being blown away by weaponsfire and explosions, wooden fences to stone walls to solid ground.

That's exactly how it works. You can see the current testing values in data/objects/cells.xt under "ExplDmp" (Explosion Dampening); some props also dampen explosions (props.xt), though not many yet. I didn't make dampening a material property, since it probably needs to be a terrain-specific value to translate the original X-COM data properly. There are "materials" defined (in materials.xt) for uses in other ways though, including specifications for damage modifications to a given object.

You are right to have not too much vertical damage in explosions, better fits the x-com legacy.
(personally, I was pretty annoyed at this mechanic in X-com though. )
Having a HE pack go off in a barn and only searing the floor of the level above was just weird. (IIRC the top floors could end up hovering if the walls were all shot out, so...)

Definitely weird yeah, but still fun! Anyway, in X@COM that barn would most likely just fall to pieces, depending on where there's no longer enough support to keep the walls and roof up. The game uses an A* routine combined with variables that control levels of support given by different terrain to determine whether connected terrain should fall, so weaker structures could be much easier to topple naturally, while with stronger ones (like UFOs) you generally have to do all the damage yourself.

just thinking.
Would there be trouble with (rising) fireballs and/or animated mushroom clouds be for explosions? (fire damage only)

Purely visual effects are doable without much difficulty--can just add more parts to the animation definition. Actually having that fire do fire damage would require some modifications/additions, as would adding to the shape of an explosion's effective area like that. Right now the only way weapons can deal fire damage by setting the entire explosion to the "IN" (incendiary) type.

edit: Got seriously annihilated a several times in the last several hours. . .

Heh, well, since Area 51 was an older scenario, and I knew it was beatable in R4, I made it a little harder in R5 since I did give the rookies their proper armor and give you access to more rockets and explosives. I may have overshot the goal there, though, and got a little number-happy on the alien spawn count--the numbers are still somewhat random, however, so in some games you may be more fortunate than others.

I noticed I could block the movement of the big colossus, then it detonated!!

It "detonated"? My guess is you saw it step on a fuel drum, which explode. I suppose you can block its movement, though that means standing next to it which is probably not a good idea. I should make its bite do even more damage and teach you a lesson Actually, on looking at it it already does do a lot of damage, but the Colossus can act pretty stupid sometimes, and may not even see you. (I remember I originally even made it myopic, but that caused it to be too unresponsive under fire.)

I know you wrote the aliens have no team-strategy nor team-vision yet, but it still feels like the enemy can see through walls.

The current AI placeholder is pretty stupid: they don't share information except when fleeing from you And they can't see through walls, of course, though the Colossus does like to step through them

[MaximumZero]

I really, really suck at this game.

So, it's just like the original XCom. Well done.