Home » PLAYER'S HQ 1.13 » JA2 Complete Mods & Sequels » UC/DL 1.13 & AFS » UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to 2010/10/16)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251146]
|
Sat, 08 May 2010 19:06
|
|
Wil473 |
|
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004 Location: Canada |
|
|
Sorry, sidetracked by real life.
In the original Urban Chaos prof.dat, Grunty has Night Ops and Heavy traits. Not sure if there was an intention to make him a trainer as per the continuing back story for A.I.M.
ShadoWarrior, how are you finding the Queen's force levels? Did you adjust QUEEN_POOL_INCREMENT_PER_DIFFICULTY_LEVEL back up from 20? So far I am thinking something has changed in the .exe which accounts for the constant "Drassen Counter attack" size forces, and cutting back the Queen's forces should balance things back to the way they were.
EDIT: forgot to mention, ran into some problems with UCC, for some reason I cannot seem to get a "passage" setup along the south edge of Balime. I think it was just me trying to do too much at once so when I have a moment I'll try again. My plan to reduce the number of maps so far has increased the number. I am not sure about the game's lategame stability with the current .exe; perhaps it won't be necessary to cut back on maps... well one can hope.
EDIT2: Hazmat, the current release does not have the updated garrisons. Shadowarrior has a RC where QUEEN_POOL_INCREMENT_PER_DIFFICULTY_LEVEL = 20, but I am thinking this cut was too drastic (default is 60). I hope to be releasing a patch soon.
[Updated on: Sat, 08 May 2010 19:15] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251157]
|
Sat, 08 May 2010 20:48
|
|
Wil473 |
|
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004 Location: Canada |
|
|
I'm only playing at experienced, so that's probably why I am not seeing too much in the way of counter attacks. Raising the pool from 20 to 30 shouldn't cause too steep of an increase.
Hazmat - to be honest, v20100423 did not fix anything crash related, though someone did note that a bug in the main 1.13 has been corrected which may increase stability. My current personal "testing" is seeing if this is the case.
The included NAS mini-mod, while something that everyone should take a look at so as to help Warmsteel with testing, has stability issues related to the code base it is based on. That being said, there is a non-crashing bug, introduced in the post HAM 3.6 code base related to civilian hints (though the last version of HAM 3.6 I could find, does not have this bug).
Speaking of v20100423, I've identified a bug with the underslung grenade launchers. In my bid to penalize attachments (AP modifier to make firing and draw higher) I forgot that the launcher itself has a firing cost. Therefore you all might be finding that the underslungs have an awfully high firing cost. This will be corrected in the patch which should be released soon.
Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
|
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251509]
|
Thu, 13 May 2010 20:01
|
|
Minty |
|
Messages:110
Registered:July 2009 Location: UK |
|
|
I've just made a rather... Startling discovery.
Take an AMD-65M (Normally a rather sub-par weapon). Throw on a basic scope, say the entry-level PO 3.5 scope (Gives a bit of to-hit bonus, aimbonus and reduces shot-AP). Stick on a Korsak laser, for a nice bit of to-hit bonus inside 25 squares. For giggles, add in a bipod, for another 10 to-hit bonus.
Now, the icing on the cake (And something I'm sure isn't intended): Add on an extended stock. This gives another hefty chunk of to-hit bonus AND reduces ahot-AP fairly massively.
Now you've got an assault rifle with a to-hit bonus of 40+, and a single-shot AP cost of 2-3, depending on your merc's APs. And yes, you read that right. That's 2-3, NOT 23.
Methinks the AMD-65M could use either removing the folding stock slot, or having it's base stats nerfed to be inline with other rifles that use the system. As is, it's wide open to abuse and exploitation.
I *think* the main problem is that AP-cost percentage increases/decreases are all added together THEN applied to the weapon. So in this case, it'd be the PO scope and the extended stock combining to give a heinous %-reduction of 80%+.
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251553]
|
Fri, 14 May 2010 18:15
|
|
Minty |
|
Messages:110
Registered:July 2009 Location: UK |
|
|
All the AMDs I've found came without an attached stock, but with the stock-slot available in NAS. I've not been playing OAS since you released the minimod, and I doubt I'll go back to OAS.. It'd be as painful as going back to pre-NIV, or pre-HAM..
But yeah.. I just scavenged an extended stock off one of the unfeasibly common AK-105s and slapped it in. It wasn't *too* heinous till I thought of adding on the PO scope. Honestly, the scope might be a little OP, as it gives sightrange bonus, aimbonus, allows attachment of a Korsak, AND gives a shoot-AP reduction too. All for what? About $500 or so from Bobby Ray's? The reflex scope doesn't do half of that, yet it costs upwards of $2k..
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251557]
|
Fri, 14 May 2010 18:38
|
|
Minty |
|
Messages:110
Registered:July 2009 Location: UK |
|
|
No, no.. This is the PO 3.5P, or whatever it's called. I've not fired up UC today, but I *think* it gave a 20% reduction in AP costs, or thereabouts. The progression for Russian scopes seems to go Kobra, PO 3.5P, PSO-1, PSO-P.
And the Korsak's working as intended: giving a to-hit bonus inside it's 25-square range, not giving an AP-reduction of any kind.
I know this is a little late in the day, and the system's already nicely established but.. What do you think of the concept of revising the folding stock system, so that all weapons that can take folding stocks have base stats as though the stocks were folded, and only saw accuracy gains, and draw/shoot-AP penalties with the extended/deployed stocks attached? And the folded stock version of the stock would give no bonuses or penalties, and effectively be an easy-access placeholder. Or vice-versa, to match the weapon-graphics.
Don't mind me, it just always struck me as a bit odd that without a stock attached, the weapons are actually *worse* than if they had a folded stock attached.
Just my two pence. And not a criticism, just brainstorming a little is all.
Edit: Just double-checked, and it's the PO 3.5x21P scope. Gives +3 daysight range, 40% FoV-narrow, and -20% Attack-AP modifier.
Humorous sidenote: For giggles, I tried replacing the extended stock with a folded one from another AK-105.. Single-shot APs down to -4 (Yes, that's right. Negative APs to fire), autofire APs down to 4, and readyAPs of 6..
[Updated on: Fri, 14 May 2010 18:51] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251735]
|
Mon, 17 May 2010 06:47
|
|
Minty |
|
Messages:110
Registered:July 2009 Location: UK |
|
|
Just found an error with the Commando LBE upgrades: Unlike the basic-level Commando LBE, they don't give any woodland or desert camo-bonus. In addition to the lack of camo-bonus, the Commando SAW LBE seems to have the wrong size set. It won't fit in any backpack slots, and can only be in stacks of one (1) in sector-inventory. I've not checked, but it seems to have the same itemsize as the jerrycans of gas.
The Commando Holster and Tourist's Beltpack have the same size-issue as the Commando SAW LBE. Additionally, the Commando Holster's pockets don't match it's ingame description: It's got a face-item LBE slot, instead of the stated SMG holster slot.
Just incase you're wondering why my xml-bugreports come up in fits and starts.. I'm testing by actually playing the game, not fiddling with GABBI, infinite cash, and uber-BR settings. Tends to give more real-world results, though I admit it's hardly a comprehensive way of doing it.
[Updated on: Mon, 17 May 2010 12:17] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #251752]
|
Mon, 17 May 2010 17:09
|
|
Minty |
|
Messages:110
Registered:July 2009 Location: UK |
|
|
Aside from the old codebase issues, stability's absolutely fine, with the default ini you supply. Previously, using a rather heavily-altered ini that allowed reinforcements and such.. Not quite so stable.
Also, I've been conciously taking out whole towns before venturing into the subway for that town, so I couldn't say whether the NAS alpha-codebase has the missing garrisons bug or not.
I've had the odd crash here and there, and a few lockups whilst sorting/selling sector inventory. Strangely, the lockups haven't been on-click.. I've often finished what I was doing, and *about* to click to close down the inv-overlay and it's crashed. Maybe connected is that it sometimes takes a good few seconds of HD-churn to close the sector inv down. Of course, that may be related to the NAS codebase rather than a UC-specific issue.
As for the LBEs and other XML-stuff.. I tend to report the errors here, then fix them in my local files. Would it be of help to send or post my fixes as I do them? Or would that be a case of "too many cooks"?
Report message to a moderator
|
Sergeant
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Re: UC-1.13 Public Beta Discussion 1 (2009/10/29 to --/--/--)[message #252054]
|
Sun, 23 May 2010 03:13
|
|
Wil473 |
|
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004 Location: Canada |
|
|
ShadoWarrior, those are oversights from when I thought the AN-94 and RPK-74 should have a folding stock. I neglected to remove the possibility of attachment when I cleared the default attachment. In reality the AN-94 cannot eject casings properly with the stock folded so the in-game folding stock was removed from it, though for storage purposes, I think I left it sized so that it can fit into a space one size smaller than a fixed stock equivalent. I'm still on the fence for the RPK-74, should it or shouldn't it have a folding stock?
I'll look into the Belt Pack later.
EDIT: with the folding stock system, the folding stock is not really meant to be an option. If it is there by default, then it has one and always should have one of the two choices of stocks attached. Cases where a gun can take a stock attachemnt, but does not have one attached by default are errors.
EDIT 2 (Additional Update): incresed damage for 7.62x25mm TT round, this one has always seemed a bit underpowered in the Hybrid, and if I'm remembering correctly, the original Urban Chaos' Tokarev TT had higher damage than than in-game 9x18mm and 9x19mm pistols.
EDIT3 (Testing): Rather dissapointed with stability with the combination of the current releases of both the Hybrid and SVN, I am seeing quite a few random crashes now and for the last two days of testing, though nothing chronic/repeatable yet. Day 51; 100/100 progress; Atremo, Calisto, Port Kip, Sheraton, Gotham and all three (non-Capital) SAM sites taken and garrisoned. Drop-all enabled to check item progress, but I am emptying out the inventory in most sectors after combat (ALT key to sell off). Placement of mercs for combat seems to be a problem, as is other forms of switching to tactical view. Both causing the game to lock frequently, though thankfully Windows 7 Task Manager has so far remained responsive.
[Updated on: Tue, 25 May 2010 17:16] by Moderator Report message to a moderator
|
|
|
|
Pages (13): [ 7 ] |
|
Goto Forum:
Current Time: Thu Mar 28 10:53:02 GMT+2 2024
Total time taken to generate the page: 0.03576 seconds
|