Jump to content


Photo

Walls, Of All Types


  • Please log in to reply
57 replies to this topic

#1 Valthonis

Valthonis

    Squaddie

  • Forum Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 12:58 PM

This is meant both as a question and a suggestion. (and no offence intended)

What is the point of walls in ufo2000 ?. I mean, except for the low tech rifle and pistol every other weapon can shoot through walls. I mean this is fine with wood, or even concrete walls, but lets take ufo walls for an example.

You have placed you team members covering every exit from the center engine core in the ufo, no-one is getting in here alive!..

but woe and alas! look, some smartass just blasted down 50% of the walls using nothing but a very cheap (really if compared to power?) plasma rifle. thus destroying the entire need to place units effectivly, why?

Because walls wont stop bullets... this is extremely annoying since you cannot use them for anything else than blocking line of sight. now, im not saying that every wall should be indestructible. but certain walls like those in a ufo, should be. Since if they are not, then whats the point of doors ? just make a hole :).

Another reason for this little rant is the really annoying way some people play the game (not to say its the wrong way , just that it annoys me, ;) ). the way that they often play is simple. just fire HE and plasma at the other side of the map until not one single wall is left standing. for those players im guessing that the soldiers line of sight could be set to 2, as long as they can target the other side of the map....

Now, to conclude i guess I should summarice a bit, :P

Are all the walls destructible on purpose, that is have you coded it to be this way?

Is there any chance of seeing "bullet/plasma" proof walls in the game sometime in the future?

- Valthonis

#2 Llyr

Llyr

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 01:52 PM

i recommend use of the
modified x-com weapons (no explosives/smoke)
weapon set, and asking for game rules like 7k point on 10 soldiers. this gives 700 points per soldier, which is exactly enough for a plasma rifle, no armor - nothing else.

i you play some city map then, where there is a lot of walls, you will always have some place to hide and stay unnoticed.
i personally wouldn't like completely indestructible walls, since this would lead to much more "campier" behavior. if no cover garuantees protection for long, you are forced to be always on the move. i had some very very nice games this way.

i too don't like the game style of just flattening everything with HE and then using smoke for cover too much, but i think its just a question of taste. this way of play should be allowed and possible too, for everyone who likes it that way.

i think such things should stay adjustible by using different weapon sets and game rules, rather than changing the tilesets, so that some walls are really indestructible no matter what. the choice should stay with the players.

i think it would be a good idea to create a weapon set which is balanced on its own, but is much weaker in damage output than other sets. this way it would be possible just to change the weapon set and voila - walls need two, three or even more hits to be destroyed.

it would be nice to restrict players choice of armor though. so that maybe the weapon sets .lua file has a line like "max_allowed_armor" or something... or it could be a seperate game option, changeable at the start of every game...

#3 Valthonis

Valthonis

    Squaddie

  • Forum Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 02:09 PM

Well, I see your point, and im not sure this is the right place to ask, but i tried downloading the "modern real" weapons pack, but, uhm... I cant get it to work, my guess/hope is that these weapons will not have the same damage output as plasma, (since most walls can hold against a few hits against most other weapons).

Not that i have any idea of the amount of work required but i gather from your reply that it is possible to make tilesets that have "indestructible" tiles, so that for some very special maps that im thinking about, I can have walls that can withstand anything?

Another option I have not yet considered is playing with the "no alien weapons" set, although this still leaves me with the rocketlauncher and various HE shells. but hey, somethings one has to live with. :P

Another thing that a friend of mine mentioned, the fact that damage deducts from the armors protective value is realistic, but seems to remove the advantage of for an example power armor, by simply shooting it once (with heavy plasma or the like) that armor is rendered useless. so he came up with the idea, "is it possible to change that, so the armor value stays the same,?" (like the original game). just throwing it out there, since it seems highly unlikely that this will be changed, since i see the reason behind making the armor loose value, its simple, to allow low powered weapons a chance to "kill that hulking powersuit standing over there";)

- Valthonis

#4 Kratos

Kratos

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,113 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 06:04 PM

There is a very simple answer to ufo walls being indestructible. Ufo2000 is receiving data from 'xcom ufo's' mcd files, which is 'preset' from the original game. If you want to change that, go ahead...but you will have to rely on people downloading your special file...which people don't do very often.

Armor system is maybe a little off I agree, since logically a portion and not all of your armor is being blown away, which can be used against bullets, explosions, etc. At least the damage system is random in the beta now. ;)

Edited by Kratos, 31 December 2005 - 06:04 PM.


#5 Valthonis

Valthonis

    Squaddie

  • Forum Members
  • PipPip
  • 5 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 07:43 PM

There is a very simple answer to ufo walls being indestructible.


But the ufo walls are NOT indestructible. that is , i simply use heavy plasma to destroy them, if i remember correctly this was not possible (at least not with one shot) in the original game. though it is not the biggest of problems as long as one disallows heavy plasma, but then again, this deducts from the game. so...

well... i guess im the only one with this problem.... i just miss the more "real" (if you could call it that) damage to terrain and structures/ufo's of the original game, but then ufo2000 is not ufo enemy unknown....

#6 Sporb

Sporb

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 739 posts

Posted 31 December 2005 - 08:01 PM

While most walls are destructable, there are some that arent. Try the second cargo ship varient, its impossible to escape the bow compartment which kinda makes it a crap level! (especially when player two has 99.99% chance of exploding thanks to those barrels)

We need some new values to assign to walls such as a higher damage tolerance instead of 254 (is 255 indestructalbe? i forget) so that only special tools and huge explosions can break them.

#7 Hobbes

Hobbes

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 01:10 AM

What is the point of walls in ufo2000

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


The literal answer would be:
1) To provide cover. Like it has been said, the cover they provide can be temporary but it can be hard to kill a unit, especially armored ones, because you will need to coordinate the fire for several of your own units.
2) To provide concealement by blocking a unit's line of sight, like Lywr said. If the other guy decides to take a look then mostly likely he will kill your unit but if he forgets to look (especially if he has no clue that anyone has moved there) then you can make him a nasty surprise.
3) To determine natural movement of units passing by the terrain. Most times players will take the obvious and easiest route, following the walls than breaking through them.

These factors and how destructable the terrain is determine the use of walls (and other features). Indestructable walls mean full cover and set movement routes for units. It also means that the game will turn into the UFO type fights you mentioned, with plenty of reaction shots.
You can get more of those types of fights by 2 ways on UFO2000. First by using less powerful weapons and preferably no explosives, or by picking a terrain designed to take a lot of damage, like X-COM Base.
But UFO2000 weapons and their effects on the terrain are different from the original game and thus you see people breaking through UFO walls that couldn't be breached before. And I think it makes those games less boring, because you can do unexpected things, and it will force you to move more.
There's not much that can be done about the weapons right now: the modern real weapons set you downloaded is incomplete and was designed for an earlier version. And there are a couple of features that might be implemented to the engine to make the terrain withstand more the effects of blasts.
That would be better than simply changing the values of the terrains, since you could only do that for new terrains, not the original ones.

#8 Exo2000

Exo2000

    Colonel

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,009 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 07:26 AM

There is a very simple answer to ufo walls being indestructible. Ufo2000 is receiving data from 'xcom ufo's' mcd files, which is 'preset' from the original game. If you want to change that, go ahead...but you will have to rely on people downloading your special file...which people don't do very often.

Armor system is maybe a little off I agree, since logically a portion and not all of your armor is being blown away, which can be used against bullets, explosions, etc. At least the damage system is random in the beta now. ;)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I wouldn't call it random, myself, but you do have to fully "degrade" armour on the facing you're shooting at to cause HP damage now.

(Ex; my rookie with a rifle is shooting at a power-armoured soldier. He'll have to take off all the front armour (or whichever facing) he's shooting at before he can start doing health damage to the soldier inside the armour)

Ex;
Turn 1; PAS Front Armour: 110 HP: 50
Turn 2; PAS Front Armour: 90 (burst, 3 shots at 10 each, 2 hit) HP: 50
etc. etc., until the armour reaches 0, at which point you start doing HP damage. :)
Posted Image

#9 Llyr

Llyr

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 83 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 08:36 AM

What is the point of walls in ufo2000

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


The literal answer would be:
1) To provide cover. Like it has been said, the cover they provide can be temporary but it can be hard to kill a unit, especially armored ones, because you will need to coordinate the fire for several of your own units.
2) To provide concealement by blocking a unit's line of sight, like Lywr said. If the other guy decides to take a look then mostly likely he will kill your unit but if he forgets to look (especially if he has no clue that anyone has moved there) then you can make him a nasty surprise.
3) To determine natural movement of units passing by the terrain. Most times players will take the obvious and easiest route, following the walls than breaking through them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


hobbes is right, but there's even more to that.

cover from sight is by far more important than cover from shots. if you know where your enemy is, but your enemy doesn't know your soldiers locations, than you are in a position which is by far more superior than having advantage in terms of soldier numbers or fire power.
you can shoot at walls and thereby reduce the posibilites to take cover (for your opponent). but shooting will mostly give away your own location, and as long as you want to stay hidden, it's better not to shoot. you can shoot a hole in a wall and then move through there, but if you do, and your enemy sees the shot and/or the new hole in the wall, it will be easy to guess where you are now. so when playing without explosives, you will always think twice before destroying walls.
and you can shoot enemies through walls (but you'll need some more shots then). IF (and only if) you exactly know where they are. and thats a possibility i wouldn't want to miss ^^ if i couldn't do that, but only shoot at soldiers i can directly see (and that can therefore most times see me too) the game would lose some great tactical aspect i think.
but that's only my personal preference, and as i said before, other people may have other preferences. and i enjoy some heavy armored fight with much explosions and heavy firepower too. from time to time ;)

#10 Kratos

Kratos

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,113 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 04:18 PM

There is a very simple answer to ufo walls being indestructible.


But the ufo walls are NOT indestructible. that is , i simply use heavy plasma to destroy them, if i remember correctly this was not possible (at least not with one shot) in the original game. though it is not the biggest of problems as long as one disallows heavy plasma, but then again, this deducts from the game. so...

well... i guess im the only one with this problem.... i just miss the more "real" (if you could call it that) damage to terrain and structures/ufo's of the original game, but then ufo2000 is not ufo enemy unknown....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I was referring to your previously post, they NEED to be. My answer was, impossible unless you change mcd data.

#11 Hobbes

Hobbes

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 07:01 PM

I was referring to your previously post, they NEED to be. My answer was, impossible unless you change mcd data.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


There's another problem even if the mcd data is changed to make the walls indestructable. They (or any other terrain feature) don't block any damage from explosions. When a grenade detonates close to your units it is the same if there's a wall, indestructable or not, or clear ground.

#12 Sporb

Sporb

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 739 posts

Posted 01 January 2006 - 07:08 PM

we really need to re-create the structure of the existing maps and use them as the defaults, keeping the originals as 'Classics'. As the game gets more complex, the old files just cause problems (TFTD maps are terribly troublesome). Gives us a chance to recreate the terrains in stunning 32-bit colour too, thus better.

EDIT: i mean remove the need for the use of Xcom's map files completely and re-create them in ufo2000's format where they can be trated as user maps, thus easily edited and tweaked with each version.

Edited by Sporb, 01 January 2006 - 08:55 PM.


#13 Leimrei

Leimrei

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 21 January 2006 - 07:26 AM

I know the idea is too raw and would take a LOT of time to do, but here it goes.

As it was mentioned somewhere on these forums (by Violazr, i think) you could code in a new tipe of damage - "siege damage". Now, each wall and object could have its own "toughness level". Each wall and object could have its own health value, that could be decreased by inflicting siege damage only. Each weapon could have its own "siege damage" and "siege damage level" values. For example:

wooden walls, doors, objects: "toughness Lvl" - 1, health - min (numeric value).
thin concrete, metal walls, objects: "toughness Lvl" - 2, health - average
average concrete, metal walls, objects: "toughness Lvl" - 3, health - average
strong, thick layer concrete metal walls, objects: "toughness Lvl" - 4, health - a lot
special, incredibly strong walls, objects: "toughness Lvl" - 5, health - a lot

bullets, knives and the like: "siege dmg Lvl" - 0 (no siege damage at all)
laser: "siege dmg Lvl" - 2 (damages walls Lvl. 1 and 2 only), "siege dmg" - 1 point of damage (very small value, takes a lot of time to destroy a wall/object)
plasma: "siege dmg Lvl" - 3, "siege dmg" - 1

explosives: the primary use of these would be busting through those walls. They could have their "siege dmg Lvl", and "siege dmg" set according to their power and sense of logic (while you could blow up a wooden house with a simple 40mm grenade, it would do you no good firing these at a concrete wall; It would take some shots from a LAW to destroy a hardened weapon emplacement; and etc.)

What would we get out of this would be a cardinal change in game tactics. Taking up cover in a building, or crouching behind a brick wall (the farm) would not be a suicide any more, and storming an occupied building would demand some thinking to succedd (or you could always use the RPO-A http://www.partners-...baric/CLIP1.MPG ). So if you would like to destroy a house or a bunker (Beaches of Normandy map) you would have to bring some extra tools with you.

Edited by Leimrei, 21 January 2006 - 07:30 AM.


#14 Junkhead

Junkhead

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 20 posts

Posted 21 January 2006 - 10:46 AM

I know the idea is too raw and would take a LOT of time to do, but here it goes.

As it was mentioned somewhere on these forums (by Violazr, i think) you could code in a new tipe of damage - "siege damage". Now, each wall and object could have its own "toughness level". Each wall and object could have its own health value, that could be decreased by inflicting siege damage only. Each weapon could have its own "siege damage" and "siege damage level" values. For example:

wooden walls, doors, objects: "toughness Lvl" - 1, health - min (numeric value).
thin concrete, metal walls, objects: "toughness Lvl" - 2, health - average
average concrete, metal walls, objects: "toughness Lvl" - 3, health - average
strong, thick layer concrete metal walls, objects: "toughness Lvl" - 4, health - a lot
special, incredibly strong walls, objects: "toughness Lvl" - 5, health - a lot

bullets, knives and the like: "siege dmg Lvl" - 0 (no siege damage at all)
laser: "siege dmg Lvl" - 2 (damages walls Lvl. 1 and 2 only), "siege dmg" - 1 point of damage (very small value, takes a lot of time to destroy a wall/object)
plasma: "siege dmg Lvl" - 3, "siege dmg" - 1

explosives: the primary use of these would be busting through those walls. They could have their "siege dmg Lvl", and "siege dmg" set according to their power and sense of logic (while you could blow up a wooden house with a simple 40mm grenade, it would do you no good firing these at a concrete wall; It would take some shots from a LAW to destroy a hardened weapon emplacement; and etc.)

What would we get out of this would be a cardinal change in game tactics. Taking up cover in a building, or crouching behind a brick wall (the farm) would not be a suicide any more, and storming an occupied building would demand some thinking to succedd (or you could always use the RPO-A http://www.partners-...baric/CLIP1.MPG ). So if you would like to destroy a house or a bunker (Beaches of Normandy map) you would have to bring some extra tools with you.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


I like that idea. That would work well.

#15 Sporb

Sporb

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 739 posts

Posted 21 January 2006 - 11:14 AM

whould that add more strain to the engine and the connection?

Edited by Sporb, 21 January 2006 - 11:15 AM.


#16 Leimrei

Leimrei

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 21 January 2006 - 12:03 PM

Sporb wrote: whould that add more strain to the engine and the connection?

Have no idea.

Sporb wrote: We need some new values to assign to walls such as a higher damage tolerance instead of 254 (is 255 indestructalbe? i forget) so that only special tools and huge explosions can break them.

Damage tolerance could act as "health".

#17 nachtwolf

nachtwolf

    UFO2000 Staff: Leader

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts

Posted 21 January 2006 - 11:10 PM

We already have a tile property which sets how hard a target is, it's inherited from the MCD format. The only problem is how ufo2000 uses the information, Tile Armour simply means the minimum damage (as a number) it takes to destroy something, not the hitpoints, the problem lies in this behavior, not adding more properties for the tiles.

Explosives deal damage, period, they can blow up a wall because of their power... and I honestly don't see why explosives would discriminate walls from people from ennemies from objects from... you get the point.

I say : implement walls block explosives then thinker about the details like this later.

Edited by nachtwolf, 21 January 2006 - 11:17 PM.

Posted Image

#18 Leimrei

Leimrei

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 22 January 2006 - 01:12 AM

Walls blocking explosives is only a tip of the iceberg. Positioning yourself near a window would still be a suicide. There's little point hiding behind an obstacle if it can't withstand a few shots from a laser rifle.

#19 nachtwolf

nachtwolf

    UFO2000 Staff: Leader

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 310 posts

Posted 22 January 2006 - 11:00 AM

Walls blocking explosives is only a tip of the iceberg. Positioning yourself near a window would still be a suicide. There's little point hiding behind an obstacle if it can't withstand a few shots from a laser rifle.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Did you ever play area 51 terrain? The concrete walls can only be blown up by explosives, plasma or alien grenades, metal walls are a bit softer, fence is quite easy to break... etc. However, the armour values where modified, in an MCD file, the max armour value is usually 10, in area 51 the concrete walls have an armour value of 90. Still, once damage exceeded armour value, the tile is automatically destroyed, UFO 2000 engine doesn't make "hitpoints".

Sure walls need to be improved, but with careful map making you can make strong stuff and weak stuff.

My point is that we should NOT add new properties to tiles for this behavior, we do have the tools to do this already. Instead of the siege damage, we can simply make the terrain be more affected by HE type damage. And hitpoints can be made from armour value.

I agree for the hitpoints, I agree for the general improved thoughness. But the most important thing at the moment is blocking HE, Fire and smoke. Simply cause it involves more programming power than modifying the behavior of the tiles.

Edited by nachtwolf, 22 January 2006 - 11:12 AM.

Posted Image

#20 Hobbes

Hobbes

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 22 January 2006 - 11:34 AM

I agree for the hitpoints, I agree for the general improved thoughness. But the most important thing at the moment is blocking HE, Fire and smoke. Simply cause it involves more programming power than modifying the behavior of the tiles.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>


Besides blocking there is another thing that should be added to reduce the effects of explosions/weapons on terrain which were present on the original game, namely to differenciate when shots/explosions hit terrain as opposed to units. On the original game the potency of hits worked like this:

Firearms Explosives
Units 0%-200% 50%-150%
Terrain 25%- 75% 50%

The percentages refer to the weapon's stated values. The variating values are already implemented but only for the units. The engine doesn't differenciate between units and terrain when calculating the effects of hits, which would make terrain more durable if the above values were used.

If both blocking and different terrain hit values were used you'd get the engine to act very much like the original game.

#21 Leimrei

Leimrei

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 21 posts

Posted 22 January 2006 - 11:44 AM

To nachtwolf

Yes I agree. I tried the Area51 right now, pretty playable. However all the walls (exept concrete ones) are easily destroyed by simple grenades, and bullets. I would like to know more details about the walls armor value. Also I think I understand the "block explosion" thing completely wrong, could you explain that in detail too? And also, is it possible to modify the properties of tiles in existing maps?

Edited by Leimrei, 22 January 2006 - 11:45 AM.


#22 hitmark

hitmark

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 06 March 2006 - 04:39 PM

one way to stop the "urban renewal" style of play would be to put civilians into the map, and make the person that kills them lose points. problem is that right now said civilians would just be static items, as there is no ai to move them around...

as for the ufo walls, in xcom the only thing that could reliably open up a ufo was the blaster launcher. but thats not available in ufo2k (yet...), so i can understand allowing other weapons to break them down...

#23 7Saturn

7Saturn

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 06:24 AM

as for the ufo walls, in xcom the only thing that could reliably open up a ufo was the blaster launcher. but thats not available in ufo2k (yet...), so i can understand allowing other weapons to break them down...


And that's the problem, I guess. I think I've read something about the blaster and why it was taken out. (Not sure if in the wiki or in a post, but doesn't matter.) The reason was simply to make a more playable game. It won't be funny to see half of your 15 soldiers killed by one blaster-bullet.

But that is happening anyway! It's replaced by missile launcher and XAAS 12 gauge. I experienced it several times, that my opponents did nothing else than bomb everything in sight, hopeing to kill as many soldiers, they can. And they succeed every time, because the walls were no real limit. They are just blown away as nothing would be standing there.

The point is: That's nothing tactic-like. It's just boring/annoying. Use some XAAS 12 Gauge or missile launchers, and you will win against everyone who just uses "normal" weapons, like plasmas or lasers, and so on. So it might be usefull, if the range of destruction is reduced by walls. A rocket which makes a circle of 15 squares can't have the same range if there's a wall. So it's not that easy to just use a missile in a house, to blow everything up. So the missile launcher is to strong the way it is, I think.

And the XAAS 12 Gauge might just bomb windows, doors, and wooden houses. It's not realistic, that a gun fires 3 bullets in a row and can bomb a house into pices. Was it thought to be like the grenade-throwers under some kind of rifles? They also can't tear off a house.

#24 th15

th15

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 06:32 AM

The explosion algorithm isn't accurate as it is. Everything in the radius takes the damage, regardless of how many intervening walls and obstacles there are. Also, explosions always hit a trooper's under armour.

A realistic explosion algorithm was tried for a short while, but it kinda buggy so we're back to this simple one.

Until the explosion algorithm is done or the stats of objects are taken care of in the interim, explosives will remain to be this ridiculous.

#25 Blehm 98

Blehm 98

    Colonel

  • [Global Moderators]
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 2,626 posts

Posted 10 August 2006 - 09:05 AM

well, right now i've found that HEs are by far the worse. I play primarily on the search and destroy mode, which ends explosives spamming. But High explosives are like uber weapons, and for the one reason that they can be dropped anywhere, and they ahve a massive area of effect wtih a ton of damage.

i don't really play anyhting but the modified xcom set though so i can't talk about the shotgun and grenade launcher
Top Secret Xenocide Status report

BF2 Hackers =5SF= have busted
]sD[ Engageo <-- couldn't get him banned though, no screenshot of him ingame
]sD[Nomisser
an AK guy
The anti-logarithm of the logarithm of X plus the logarithm of Y equals X times Y, or 10^(logX + logY) = XY
Posted Image
I hate spider solitaire...

#26 7Saturn

7Saturn

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 11 August 2006 - 02:30 AM

i don't really play anyhting but the modified xcom set though so i can't talk about the shotgun and grenade launcher

Sorry, maybe is was unclear. The weapon behaves like a grenade-thrower. The Bullets have an effect like the missile launcher, but just with a radius of 2-3 squares (don't know exactly, but it's not much). The problem is that there is auto-shot, so you got 3 bullets bombing an area away thats quite enough to kill 2-3 soldiers at once. So if someone uses 3 or 4 of these attacks, half of you squad may be wiped out, although the opponent can't see exactly, what he's bombing. And I have experienced that often, yet. And it's only bothering, if you try to play "fair". I think it's no tactic, to place a daisy-cut like bomb-cluster. It's only f***ing unfair, especially if you don't start the first round. <_<

#27 Kratos

Kratos

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,113 posts

Posted 12 August 2006 - 12:13 AM

Yes, most of us will agree it's unfair to do that. A developer test version had this problem pretty much straightened out (ie: blew up the inside of the house, and few walls). However, that was the original xcom weapon set tested with this. I can't say anything for the ufo2000 weapon because it was designed in the eyes of the creator, sporb. I'm sure if he sees this, he'll explain/commodate to your problem.

#28 Longshot

Longshot

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 04:06 AM

Hi guys. I'm just going to say I really like the newest Beta version of the game. I actually...well, call me unfair or whatever, like it the way it is for the most part.

Really if you think about it the tactics aren't that different from the ones used by the allies later in WWII when urban combat reached it's zenith. The allies had had enough of sneaking through houses, buildings, etc...and (especially the Americans) they simply began to destroy the entire building before sending troops in.

Now I do agree that when someone gets the starting advantage and launches 30 some rounds of HE XAAS ammo that's it's simply rediculous, but aside from that I find it quite accurate really. What idiot nowadays would try and root resistance out of a house by going door to door? When you're talking a fully equipped military I mean?

No one would. Blow that bastard up. Less risk to your men. I dunno, I think it's cool the way it is except for the bit about walls not absorbing some of the damage. I had no idea this was the case until I read this thread.

Now, I know nothing about the programming you guys do in this game but would it be possible to simply give walls an armor value? From the explanation given above It seems that the unit armor now functions where it's damage must be accounted for (depending on facing) first, before the unit itself takes any, so would it be tough at all to make walls do the same?

Anyway, great job! I'm having a blast!

#29 7Saturn

7Saturn

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 04:46 AM

I particularly agree with you. It' totally OK, to bomb a house, if I know that someone is in it. And as you mentioned, it's not fair to fire 30 Gauge-shots or something like that, not knowing, where you fire.

I guess the idea of armoured walls itself is good, but difficult to implement. You would need to save the armour-information for all walls, stairs, ... an so on. Much RAM-usuage for such a simple thing. But the idea was good. Something this way would be fine.

#30 Jezulkim

Jezulkim

    Captain

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 194 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 07:15 AM

When you're talking a fully equipped military I mean?

Is xcom a fully equipped military? And after all, they are protecting the civilians (not included with ufo2000 as you may know :P) so they can't just bomb any house. Maybe the aliens could do that since they want to kill humans.

Much RAM-usuage for such a simple thing

Are you sure? Why it would be so much different from the original xcom?
The xcom system requirements:
- Windows
- 80386 or better processor
- 4 MB RAM
- VGA videocard
Not very high, eh? And that includes the WHOLE game, not just the wall properties.
That's my team in my avatar!

#31 7Saturn

7Saturn

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 08:56 AM

OK, you are right. I thought about an integer-array of all walls, with number representing the rest-armour. If it's a city, with 3 floors, completely used because of the houses, it might be about less them 32 kb. It's not much.

#32 Sporb

Sporb

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 739 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 06:42 PM

never underestimate the power of Page filing. Most modern games use similar methods to store uncompressed textures etc.

#33 Longshot

Longshot

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 65 posts

Posted 16 August 2006 - 07:07 PM

Is xcom a fully equipped military? And after all, they are protecting the civilians (not included with ufo2000 as you may know ) so they can't just bomb any house. Maybe the aliens could do that since they want to kill humans.


Well...I guess I always assumed they were supposed to be. It reminds me of a NATO type force but with less well established command and logistical structures. The member nations contribute to the military force as they see fit modified by ability to pay. I guess you can make a case either way. Nonetheless they are at least the eqivilent of a UN force.

I'd day the Aliens would bomb away with impunity.

Stopping the 30 HE shots in the first round is a tougher nut, as noted, because as has been mentioned, you want to leave the freedom in the game to play how you want to play. So rather than developing arbitrary rules that limit this you ideally want to simply create a situation where such tactics either don't work well or are less effective. Some way of adding civvies and penalties for killing them seems easiest as a concept but as I read above that is impossible as this point to mean anything other than having a "you're a bad boy" message at the end of the game. :(

The only idea I can come up that would solve this has a couple issues right off the bat but I'll throw it out anyway in case it might jog someone else to something better.

Just to throw it out there, if any of you ever played tabletop TBS games in the past you might have played Champions. A super-hero based game where you build your super hero from scratch. I always like the turn system in this game, and it's one very few TBS games ever employ ( I think Buck Rogers on the old Sega Genesis had a similar system, which is available on ROMs now ;) ). Each round consists of 12 phases. When you make your hero you assign him/her a speed number and this is the phase his turn occurs in (actually it was more somplex than that, but essentially this is what it boils down to.

12 being the first phase and 1 being the last phase. It was relatively cheap to have your hero at least have a 6 speed. However, after 9 the cost rose exponetially so that to have a 12 speed you would vitually have no other super powers without also having to take on a whole world of disadvantages.

Anyway, point being as it relates to UFO, if it were possible to implement something like this to all units regardless of which team they are on it would change the advantages completely. Additionally if you were able to say: Include modifiers for weight (something like -1 speed for each soldier encumbered (carrying a load that requires a 30 strength I mean) over 30, -2 at 33, -3 at 36 etc...Or something along those lines, you could essentially force those carryign the heavy HE weapons to the end of the round. Or if that's too much, perhaps simply giving heavier weapons a negative speed factor by themselves is enough. (ie. XAAS subtracts 2 from speed regardless, the heavier stuff 3 and 4 and so on)

Anyway on phase 12 those with 12 speed go first regardless of team, then you proceed through the phases on down the line to 1. This essentially eliminates the advantage of being the Challenger. Also another benefit if cost for "speed" and Strength were balanced out you could make it quite difficult to have both a 30+ strength and a higher than 6 speed, for instance.

Perhaps if implementing another non-X-Com ability is to too hard you could tie this into TU without adding "speed"?

Problems (that I see right off that bat):

1) You are all probably groaning at how Niavely I am proposing this, and rightfully outraged that a non-techie dweeb could propose so much complete and total rewrite of game code. Your hatred is noted. :(

2) It changes the basic structure of the X-Com feel of the game too much. I understand this as well, and don't entirely disagree but if implementable at all might surprise some.

anyway, as always very appreciative of your work, and just trying to help seek constructive solutions since I can't do anything else. :D

EDIT- Waaaaaaaay to many typos.

Edited by Longshot, 16 August 2006 - 07:33 PM.


#34 hitmark

hitmark

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 10 posts

Posted 21 October 2006 - 09:38 AM

while not having the full knowhow about how explosives work ingame, nor being a demolitions expert, here are my take on how explosives should behave.

first off, reduced power by distance. ie, for every square out from the point of detonation, the damage should be reduced.

extra reduction could come from bodies or walls in the way (park a guy with heavy armor on top of a grenade and he may well take one for the team by more or less trowing himself on the explosive ;) ). if a wall is strong enough, it may well absorb the whole blast and keep standing, resulting in the person on the other side coming away unharmed.

on thing tho, when a wall or similar is blown apart, the material of the wall may add to the damage done to people behind the wall as the wall is turned into many small objects traveling at high speed towards anyone on the other side of said wall.

windows and similar should only give partial absorbtion of the explosive damage, alltho crunching behind said window should still be a better option then standing out in the open.

all in all, its rarely the explosive force itself that kills beyond the point where its no longer able to rip your limbs off. its stuff like rocks, glass, screws or other small objects that the blast can push forward like some kind of makeshift bullet. cant say its tempting to have a deformed piece of metal the size of someone fist come flying towards me at bullet-like speeds.

Edited by hitmark, 21 October 2006 - 09:39 AM.


#35 Dreadnought

Dreadnought

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 02 November 2006 - 12:06 PM

while not having the full knowhow about how explosives work ingame, nor being a demolitions expert, here are my take on how explosives should behave.

first off, reduced power by distance. ie, for every square out from the point of detonation, the damage should be reduced.


Someone in the coder team could implement a new "explosion algorithm" like this (pseudocode):

While (!explo_ended) //until explosion finished, do:
{
  central_square = x,y;  //Explosion starts from central square
  max_range= bomb.range; //It depends to bomb/HE ammo type

  //create a 2D matrix of squares to be applied at the map, the matrix should contain the entire explosion
  //sweep from 0 clockwise starting from vertical positive direction

  {
	assign max_damage to center square;
	for (angle=0; angle<360; angle + 10;)
	{
	   max_damage = bomb.damage; // this sould be set every angle change.

	   for (range=0; range <= max_range; range++;)  
	   {

		 
		 //find square by circular (polar) coordinates in the 2D explosion matri, in this way
		 //go to next square using (angle,range) coordinates;
		 next_square = matrix[x1,y1];

		 if square is empty 
		   {
		   damage = max_damage - [0.8 x (1 - range / max_range)];
		   //gives 100% damage in the center and 20% damage at max range.

		   matrix[x1,y1].damage = damage;
		   //fill the matrix with damage values.
		   }
		 else //there is an object in the square
		   {
		   max_damage = max_damage - object.hitpoints; //max_damage has decreased for objects in path

		   damage = max_damage - [0.8 x (1 - range / max_range)];
		   //gives 100% damage in the center and 20% damage at max range.

		   matrix[x1,y1].damage = damage;
		   //fill the matrix with damage values.
		   }
	  
		 // some squares are checked more times than once, this should not be a problem
		 
	   } // end of distance-for
	} // end of angle-for

explo_ended = 1; // explosion has ended

} // end while

/*
applies the explosion mask on the map, giving damage to all the environment
this should be done in a 3D environment, so is a bit more complex than this :(
*/

hope this help... or at least is a free advice, i'm not expecting that this will be implemented, i've got no time to do this, and think also other people couldn't have time either :)

Edited by Dreadnought, 02 November 2006 - 12:08 PM.


#36 th15

th15

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 02 November 2006 - 04:28 PM

Umm I'm pretty sure damage is reduced by range. There's a fixed progression defined in the ammunition type I believe (i.e. 5 squares range = 30 dmg). The problem is that explosives go through walls and always damage under armour (the weakest point of all armour). That's what makes taking cover pointless because the closer you are to a big hulking object, the easier you are to catch in the explosion.

#37 Dreadnought

Dreadnought

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 02 November 2006 - 06:24 PM

Umm I'm pretty sure damage is reduced by range. There's a fixed progression defined in the ammunition type I believe (i.e. 5 squares range = 30 dmg).

Right.
No problem for this, the problem is that a Xaas-HE ammo does 50 points damage.
The explo reduces his power proportional the range, ok, so, you fire a xaas-HE grenade near some wall, the explosion sometimes destroys the wall, sometimes not, but it trepasses the wall in any case :(

Look here:
The floater near the wall has 10 armor + 55 health.
Explosion hits the wall where you see the hole in the garage. There the wall takes 50 dmg and it is destroyed; the other parts of the wall take the reduced damage, and they do not fall down.

The floater in the right takes 55-47=8 + 10= 18 damage (health + armor), but the wall near him is intact.
Posted Image

So the explosion decreased power within range, but it wasn't blocked by the wall.

The problem is that explosives go through walls and always damage under armour (the weakest point of all armour).

The under armor was the ony affected by explosions also in UFO.

That's what makes taking cover pointless because the closer you are to a big hulking object, the easier you are to catch in the explosion.

That's not totally correct, some walls -like in industrial maps- protect you fomr some grade of explosions, the problem is that, when walls are no more effective as cover, the explosion hits you with full power (decreased by range, but almost always too much).

This is bringing the game in 2 types:
- explosive games, when you devastate all the scenario and try to bring down the enemy firing in all the point you think he is.
- noex games, where you camp more than counterstrike.

The algorythm i've posted tries to fix this, but discretizing a spherical explosion in a sqaure-block environment isn't easy, if you add the fact that in some cases the explosion is reduced by obstacles it finds in his deflagration, all things become more than complicated.

#38 th15

th15

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 53 posts

Posted 03 November 2006 - 05:24 AM

Umm the walls won't help you against the explosion damage at all. As in your screenshot, even the toughest walls will allow damage through. So hiding behind a wall just makes it that much easier to hit you. You need to hide behind whole buildings for cover.

UFO2000's hitbox engine is also far more compelx than that. Each square is made up of a 3d matrix of individual points. Sort of a really lo-fi raster polygon. In my opinion, the simplest way to implement in a realistic explosion is to just use the firing algorithm and fire a bunch of projectiles outward from the explosion point.

Edited by th15, 03 November 2006 - 05:28 AM.


#39 Dreadnought

Dreadnought

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 04 November 2006 - 09:06 AM

Umm the walls won't help you against the explosion damage at all. As in your screenshot, even the toughest walls will allow damage through. So hiding behind a wall just makes it that much easier to hit you. You need to hide behind whole buildings for cover.

sure... infact there's a bug

UFO2000's hitbox engine is also far more compelx than that. Each square is made up of a 3d matrix of individual points. Sort of a really lo-fi raster polygon. In my opinion, the simplest way to implement in a realistic explosion is to just use the firing algorithm and fire a bunch of projectiles outward from the explosion point.

I've thought at this solution, the problem is avoiding multiple hit of any character in the map, or counting them once.

#40 7Saturn

7Saturn

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 04 November 2006 - 01:56 PM

I've thought at this solution, the problem is avoiding multiple hit of any character in the map, or counting them once.


But multiple hits would be THE solution for the damage-problem. Every "pseudo-bullet" should have the same damage. The nearer you are, the more often you are hit, so the damage near the explosion centre might be (for example) 5 hits of for example 10 damage (summed up 50 damage), while at the end of the range you are just hit by one "missile-fragment" and get 10 damage. Combined with a hitpoints-system for the walls, it might take every of our pseudo-bullets, and the soldier behind the wall would not get any hit. The only remaining problem is, how exactly the bulleting-system should work. For example how many bullets in which angles, and the maximum range should not be broken. Pseudo-bullets flying all over the map would be crazy :-).

#41 Oldtype

Oldtype

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 04 November 2006 - 03:02 PM

But multiple hits would be THE solution for the damage-problem. Every "pseudo-bullet" should have the same damage. The nearer you are, the more often you are hit, so the damage near the explosion centre might be (for example) 5 hits of for example 10 damage (summed up 50 damage), while at the end of the range you are just hit by one "missile-fragment" and get 10 damage. Combined with a hitpoints-system for the walls, it might take every of our pseudo-bullets, and the soldier behind the wall would not get any hit. The only remaining problem is, how exactly the bulleting-system should work. For example how many bullets in which angles, and the maximum range should not be broken. Pseudo-bullets flying all over the map would be crazy :-).

You might as well fix explosions instead of implementing a whole new system.
Anyhow, how many of those bullets do you want to shoot from the center of the explosion in wich way?
Bullets are stopped by the first object they hit, that would be a wall in some cases. So it would not matter how powerfull the explosion or how weak the wall, the explosion damage would end where the wall is.
Also something to consider is system resources, calculating so many projectiles needs some processing power.

That said, I think a hitpoint+armor system for walls would be good.

Edited by Oldtype, 04 November 2006 - 03:09 PM.


#42 Hobbes

Hobbes

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 04 November 2006 - 03:21 PM

You might want to have a look at the explosions system of the current stable version (627). There damage from explosions is applied to different locations of the soldier's armor, depending on where the explosion occurs. If happens right below the soldier then it affects the under armor, if the explosion occurs on any other location then it depends to the direction on which the soldier is facing (i.e. an explosion on the back of the soldier would hit his back armor, etc.)

Unfortunately this system was deactivated on the betas some time ago because of unresolved bugs but it greatly reduced the impact of explosions since the damage wasn't always applied to the under armor.

#43 7Saturn

7Saturn

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 87 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 05:50 AM

Anyhow, how many of those bullets do you want to shoot from the center of the explosion in wich way?

That's the problem I can't figure out exactly. ;)

Bullets are stopped by the first object they hit, that would be a wall in some cases. So it would not matter how powerfull the explosion or how weak the wall, the explosion damage would end where the wall is.

I thought the first object SHOULD have the ability to stop the "projectile". For example a soldier is hiding right in the back of a wall that has 10 hitpoints left. The explosion has a range of 5 and a damage of 100. It looses 20 damage for each square. So many pseudo-shots of 5 bullets with 20 damage would "fly" in any direction, also to the soldier behind the wall. (One by one. Each bullet with a square more of range than the last one: 1st bullet 1 square, 2nd bullet 2 squares, and so on.) The wall is in a distance of let's say 3 squares.
3 Bullets won't reach the wall, because of their range.
The wall would be hit by 1 bullet of 20 damage (that one with the 4 squares-range), and wrecked down (has just 10 hitpoints left, so 20 is enough to blow it up).
And one bullet with 20 damage is left, that reaches the soldier.

Would the wall have 40 hitpoints, it were just wrecked, the soldier had no problem although his left cover.
Has the wall 50, it would stay with 10 hitpoints left.
Otherwise, if the wall with the 10 hitpoints was standing at a distance of 1 square, the wall would be wrecked and the soldier would get 80 damage.

I don't know, if this is applieable on the engine, but it's an idea.

Also something to consider is system resources, calculating so many projectiles needs some processing power.

Have you ever played X-COM collecters edition on a x486-PC? You see every secondary explosion. It is possible to handle that problem, and I guess todays PC's are fast enough, so you won't see any difference.

#44 Oldtype

Oldtype

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 07:15 AM

Have you ever played X-COM collecters edition on a x486-PC? You see every secondary explosion. It is possible to handle that problem, and I guess todays PC's are fast enough, so you won't see any difference.

mmhh not the collectors edition I think but the other version do not work that different I think.
The x486 was able to handle it because explosions there do not work the way you propose.
Lets just do a bit of math:
Each explosion fires at least one bullet in every direction in 1 degree steps.
That would be 360*180(since we are in 3D), so that would be 64800 bullets that have to calculated for each explosion. And for the system to make sense you can not realy reduce that by much, or rather not enough.
mmhh OK come to think of it could be optimized quite a bit, but it is not that simple.

It would be simpler to just let the damage progress by map cell, somewhat like this:
Damage is reduced by range and can be absorbed by walls and objects that are standing around, so a health system for them would be needed.
reduction would be: damage/distance^2
This would use under armor.
The cell where the explosion occures would be distance 1, so full damge.
Lets make an example:
A soldier is standing 2 cells away from a explosion that has 100 damage, no other objects there.
That would be distance 3, meaning 11 damage.
2. example:
A soldier is standing behind a wall with 20 hitpoints, the explosion is in the cell next to him and again does 100 Damage.
That would be distance 2, meaning 25 damage of wich the wall absorbs 20, leaving 5 for the soldier.
3. example:
A soldier is staning on the explosion and has 80 hitpoints. distance is 1, 100 explosion damge.
The soldier absorbs 80 of the 100 damage getting blown up in the process, that leaves 20 damage.
Another soldier is standing next to him, no objects. So distance is 2, meaning 5 damage to that soldier.

The explosion would stop when the damage is smaller than 1, so for 100 damage that would be 6 cells from the explosion or at a distance of 7 if nothing absorbs the damage before that.

Or something like that...

#45 Dreadnought

Dreadnought

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 06:22 PM

hummm... it's like a radiosity algorithm semplified, 7saturn's idea.

Think that 5degrees step + random angle +-2 is almost ok.
That's (360/5)^2 projectiles, around 5000, with a bit of casuality that can give you more or less damage.
The problem is that if you are near the explosion you get too much damage respect if you are far, it is quadratical, we need linear degradation of explosions.

My algo instead, was similar to a ray tracing algorithm without reflections.

P.S: No one knows how does the old UFO:EU/TFTD manages explosions? :D

#46 Hobbes

Hobbes

    UFO2000 Staff

  • Moderators
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 719 posts

Posted 05 November 2006 - 08:45 PM

P.S: No one knows how does the old UFO:EU/TFTD manages explosions? :D



Explosions on UFO

Edited by Hobbes, 05 November 2006 - 08:46 PM.


#47 Dreadnought

Dreadnought

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 06 November 2006 - 08:13 AM

Explosions on UFO


ok many details... but there's no algorythm... :)
no problem anyway :)

#48 Oldtype

Oldtype

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 06 November 2006 - 01:59 PM


Explosions on UFO


ok many details... but there's no algorythm... :)
no problem anyway :)

There is, damage is somewhat randomized(+-50%) and subject to under armor.
Damage is reduced by range(-10 per distance) and it can happen that the explosion radius is cut off by max range. Damage to non-units is not randomized. Walls and such can stop an explosion if they are not destroyed, but they do not have health, only armor.

#49 Dreadnought

Dreadnought

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 33 posts

Posted 07 November 2006 - 02:55 PM

There is, damage is somewhat randomized(+-50%) and subject to under armor.
Damage is reduced by range(-10 per distance) and it can happen that the explosion radius is cut off by max range. Damage to non-units is not randomized. Walls and such can stop an explosion if they are not destroyed, but they do not have health, only armor.

no, there's not che code of the algorythm to understand how it works :)

#50 Oldtype

Oldtype

    Sergeant

  • Forum Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 67 posts

Posted 07 November 2006 - 03:22 PM


There is, damage is somewhat randomized(+-50%) and subject to under armor.
Damage is reduced by range(-10 per distance) and it can happen that the explosion radius is cut off by max range. Damage to non-units is not randomized. Walls and such can stop an explosion if they are not destroyed, but they do not have health, only armor.

no, there's not che code of the algorythm to understand how it works :)

Well there is no actuall source code, but a description what the souce code would do. I could write the explosion code with that info at hand.