Home » MODDING HQ 1.13 » v1.13 Idea Incubation Lab  » HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262485] Mon, 13 September 2010 23:39 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
2) Is it possible for an attachment to display what weapons can accept it?


The list would be HUGE, and there's no way to decide which attachments have a tooltip and which don't. Besides, experiment a little.

Quote:
Anyway I'm going to keep quiet now because I just noticed Headrock's admonishment about not posting questions.


Yes, please refrain from that.


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262497] Tue, 14 September 2010 01:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Added another small but significant feature: When clicking on an interactive scenery object (door/container/drawers/etc.) which is already opened, the game will NOT bring up the door interaction menu. It will instead simply close the object.


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262498] Tue, 14 September 2010 01:35 Go to previous messageGo to next message
tais

 
Messages:674
Registered:February 2008
Location: NL
Well now that you're working on interactive stuff, would it be possible to open doors while standing one tile to the left or right from the tile where you normally stand when opening a door?
So that you are no more automatically a target for the person standing behind the door...


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262501] Tue, 14 September 2010 01:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
Well now that you're working on interactive stuff, would it be possible to open doors while standing one tile to the left or right from the tile where you normally stand when opening a door?


It's a completely different system - I was just messing with one small interface. And yeah I wish we could do that, but I think that would be very difficult to do. Besides, without animations it would just be weird.


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262508] Tue, 14 September 2010 02:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Headrock,

I have send you the example of strange NCTH behavior (please check you hotmail). I will try to dig into the more detail and test the game with several more weapons.xml alterations.

P.S. The NCTH is awesome, the ergonomics of the aiming process seems to be perfect, the concept seems to be 100% proven
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262516] Tue, 14 September 2010 06:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
There's still the issue of damage, but I'll do my best to repair it. Also as Smeagol correctly pointed out, the lack of ability to attach smaller scopes to Sniper Rifles is currently debilitating. I'll ask Ko5ma to alter the attachments like Smeagol did, allowing 7x and 4x scopes where necessary.

Also, I've received nothing from you by mail.


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262677] Wed, 15 September 2010 13:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Example:

Shadow is firing an M4 from 19 tiles aiming to the torso of the target with 5 rounds fully aimed burst. (M4 has the folowing stats: x dev

[Updated on: Wed, 15 September 2010 18:49] by Moderator

Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262702] Wed, 15 September 2010 19:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
I'll answer anyway. BTW you really shouldn't delete posts like that - other people may want to hear the explanation...

http://img201.imageshack.us/img201/5262/ja2screen.jpg

Quote:
2)3.6 right and 17.4 up (why the total Y deviation jumped from 1.1 in the previous case 17.4, while the Y deviation of an M4 is only 4)


The effects of both recoil and accuracy increase proportionally to range. The range in this image is about 3x, which means that the gun moves about 12 up and 3 right after each shot (relative to the center of the targeted bodypart!). In addition, expect a deviation of up to ~3 on either axis (again, thanks to range).

As a result, autofire at these ranges should be done in short, aimed bursts. This increases the chance for the first bullet to be sent into the target (as in single-shot). If the first bullet goes down and left, that increases the chance of subsequent bullets (#2 or #3) to go into the target. Mercs actually automatically compensate for recoil too - they try to send the first bullet in the OPPOSITE direction to recoil, so that recoil will put the last bullet into the target. At a range of 3x, especially with a good scope, your chances of hitting the target with a ~3 bullet burst/auto is thus considerably higher than a single shot.

As you saw in your example of course, the low recoil on the M4A1 means that a longer burst is actually capable of striking the target anyway - thanks to the shooter overpowering the gun. This is not possible with heavy-recoil guns like an AK-47, for instance, which will overpower the shooter and keep climbing, making the rest of the volley completely wasted. That's where you NEED a bipod, foregrip, and/or tracer bullets to overpower recoil, in which case a long volley becomes much more deadly (it can repeatedly sweep over the target, hitting it several times).

Quote:
4)7,1 right and 29 up (OK, seems that counterforce was used)
5)8,4 right and 13.7 up (was it a counterforce again that moved the barrel down)


Yes, that's correct. You can clearly see how Shadow started pulling the gun downwards. He actually did very well compensating for Y recoil, you can see that shot #7 had 0.5 upwards deviation, meaning that Y recoil was correctly compensated for. After that, he applied too much Y force, causing the gun to continue going downwards BELOW the target, reaching -14.0 by the tenth bullet.

The bullet that struck the target appears to be #8, with 2.5 left deviation and -10 downwards deviation, just close enough to hit the legs. If you were firing at the head however, it's possible that the hit was actually bullet #9 with virtually no X deviation and -14 Y deviation (relative to the head).


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262703] Wed, 15 September 2010 19:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Thanks,

I will try to use the math on my previous comment:

Again: Shadow is firing an M4 from 19 tiles aiming to the torso of the target with 5 rounds fully aimed burst. (M4 has the folowing stats: x dev
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262710] Wed, 15 September 2010 20:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
2,44 of unexplained difference


I would imagine that the first bullet deviated one way, and the second deviated the other way.

Yeah, it's hard to understand where the bullets are going and why based on these on-screen messages - but then again they are just a debug feature, and will be removed for the final version.


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262723] Thu, 16 September 2010 00:05 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
I am an ex auditor so i have a bult-in feature to dig into the figures Smile I personally like the on-screen messages. I do not know why but I am trying to find some bugs in the aimed auto fire feature. For example I have seen a couple of times that every next shot before counter force was applied the gun moved downwards instead of moving upwards (Y deviation was 5, range about 20 tiles). Will hunt for the screenshots.

As for the first balance impression scopes seem to be overpowered. Majec armed with an M16 equipped with ACOG managed to exterminate half of the Drassen guards - it was just impossible to do such a thing playing without scopes. The un-scoped weapons seem to be under-powered. The worst thing is that as since AI is mostly unequipped with scopes the player receives a considerable advantage. Will try to play with normal distance and scope magnification settings.

As a positive moments: no more one shot-one hit moments (without scopes). Aimed-autofire is not overpowered at all (i checked only assault rifles and do not know about SMG-s).

By the way is it possible to externalize the gun range multiplier the way damage multipliers are done? If am not making a mistake this is the factor an AI considers while deciding whether to attack or not? A lot of enemies did not manage to approach my positions and even did not try to shoot back being armed with short-range pistols. Increasing gun range would have made the AI to be more aggressive and will allow the further fine-tuning of NCTH.

This setting was already externalized by DDD (and is available in his source code).

P.S. Looking forward to the battle against enemies armed with assault rifles.





Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262729] Thu, 16 September 2010 01:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
silversurfer

 
Messages:2678
Registered:May 2009
Alex_SPB

By the way is it possible to externalize the gun range multiplier the way damage multipliers are done? If am not making a mistake this is the factor an AI considers while deciding whether to attack or not?


Actually in the past the AI checked for a minimum CTH of >=30. Below that it wouldn't shoot. I don't know what Headrock did to these formulas.

Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262730] Thu, 16 September 2010 02:06 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
For example I have seen a couple of times that every next shot before counter force was applied the gun moved downwards instead of moving upwards (Y deviation was 5, range about 20 tiles). Will hunt for the screenshots.


Please note that the red lines DO NOT necessarily indicate the counter-force point. They draw every 3 lines always, even if CF Frequency is 2 or 4 or 5 etcetera. There's no easy way to color those lines properly at the moment.

Quote:
As for the first balance impression scopes seem to be overpowered.


They should be, compared to non-scopes weapons, at a range. In other words, there are two places where scopes can be outdone by non-scoped weapons: at close range, and foregripped/bipoded automatics. At close range the scopes are rubbish, and properly-stabilized automatic can hit a target at high range even without a scope (but with lots of bullets spent). So yes, the role of scopes is now much more important, as well as using the correct scope for the given range.

Quote:
The un-scoped weapons seem to be under-powered


Unscoped weapons aren't meant for fighting out in the open (except, as above, automatics). However, they are very helpful in close combat, especially inside buildings. NCTH separates weapons into various combat roles, which increases the need to carry a wider variety of weapons rather than "ten of the best weapon I can find". That's also why you need to carry sidearms or other short-range weapons that can quickly put a lot of bullets into a target if it manages to come close, because there your scoped weapons won't help you.

Quote:
The worst thing is that as since AI is mostly unequipped with scopes the player receives a considerable advantage.


I'll increase their likelyhood to carry scopes (assuming they have a scoped weapon on hand). However I think one of the main things to be considered is restructuring the item coolness progression. IMHO if NCTH manages to define combat roles for weapons, and make all roles useful even at later stages of the game, then we should have some SMGs or even pistols appearing at coolness 10, and some rifles appearing at coolness 1. That way the AI will also be better equipped to take on a squad of mercs at the early game.

Quote:
Will try to play with normal distance and scope magnification settings.


Playing with the mag settings is probably not the best idea. A 10x scope needs to be able to hit at a distance of 10x normal. Playing with the normal range is fine - but expect the unexpected.

Quote:
By the way is it possible to externalize the gun range multiplier the way damage multipliers are done?


Yes, BUT. Range now really governs how far the bullet can fly before it begins to drop, so shooting at further away targets IS quite possible (if you shoot for the head, you've got a good chance to hit the legs at least, btw). Increasing range will do nothing to change the CTH you get when using the gun.

Quote:
Quote:
If am not making a mistake this is the factor an AI considers while deciding whether to attack or not?

Actually in the past the AI checked for a minimum CTH of >=30. Below that it wouldn't shoot. I don't know what Headrock did to these formulas.


Actually I use a primitive method of calculating hit probability based on aperture size and target size. AI's inclination to fire increases as the aperture size gets smaller - so they'll only fire when they have a reasonable chance to hit. Part of the reason they aren't inclined to shoot with unscoped pistols at 15 tiles is thanks to that - they can't get the aperture to be small enough without a scope, so they close the distance instead. The AI still needs some more work in this regard - teaching them when to autofire (they currently autofire a lot when OUTSIDE visible range, but not when they can see you). However, I'm sure that once you start encountering enemies who are properly armed and scoped, you'll start wishing they fired a little LESS. Smile

At least, that's what I expect - I need to get more feedback from you guys about the mid/late stages of the game.


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262731] Thu, 16 September 2010 02:13 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Dansken

 
Messages:87
Registered:March 2007
Location: Norway
Bug report: It seems GRAVITY_COEFFICIENT does the opposite of the description. Lowering the value actually made bullets drop to the ground earlier, while increasing the value made them fly longer before hitting the ground.

Currently, a 9 mm bullet seems to hit the ground at ~16 tiles (160 m). That seems a bit too soon, and the trajectory does look a bit strange - with a very sudden drop at the end.

Other sources indicate that a 9 mm bullet fired horizontally would fly ~450 meter (45 tiles) before hitting the ground. That may be too long for current map sizes, but 30 tiles works for me
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262732] Thu, 16 September 2010 02:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
Currently, a 9 mm bullet seems to hit the ground at ~16 tiles (160 m). That seems a bit too soon, and the trajectory does look a bit strange - with a very sudden drop at the end.


Yeah that's one problem I stupidly inherited from the old system. Right now, the grav coeff is responsible both for how FAR the bullet goes (compared to the weapon's range) and how quickly it drops. I need to separate them into two coefficients so that we can control distance and drop speed separately.

Quote:
Does damage calculation currently account for a bullet hitting well beyond its effective range?


I believe so. I should re-read the code for that though.


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262737] Thu, 16 September 2010 07:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
johno

 
Messages:44
Registered:August 2007
Id just like to say that the NCTH is fantastic

So far I have only accounted the bug Ormus mentioned about damage not being dealt. Situation is I'm on a roof shooting down at a red shirt 12 tiles away with my Ruger mini-14, I hit the red shirt in the head with a 5.56mm round for 0 damage and he was not wearing any armour. I was not able to reproduce that situation again.

Also have had the same situation as Alex with early red shirts not firing back due the low chance to hit and no cover closer to my position allowing me to just turkey shoot them. Changing the coolness values like you mentioned is a good idea.

Some early impressions I have got atm

Its harder to be certain to be able to hit, Ive had a lot of shots in the OCTH that would have been close to 100% cth but manage to miss in NCTH

Also its a lot easier to hit lucky shots because your shooting in the general direction. I have had many times how the merc don't think he can make the shot and then they do

Attachments play a huge roll in a guns effectiveness, its very impractical to shoot at long range without a scope or fire anymore than a short burst without a fore grip.

some SMG's like the Owen .45 and Thompson that have 3x 8y 3/5bap recoil seem too powerful for mercs, i created a super merc with maxed out stats and even he couldn't control it. I haven't fired a Owen or a smg but i assume that a super merc could control the recoil from a pistol round. The Owen even has a built in foregrip.

also it is possible to shoot over buildings and hit redshirts! Smile


I will try to give you some balancing feed back after i have played and tested it more.
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262757] Thu, 16 September 2010 13:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Another point: I have tried to use decimal numbers for auto and burst penalties instead of integers. (for example Y: 5.4, x: 1,2 instead of X:5 and Y:1). The difference between Y: 5 and Y: 5,4 should be noticeable at greater distances. The NCTH system seems to work OK. The only problem is that EDB rounds these numbers. Is it possible to make EDB show at least one digit after decimal point ?
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262765] Thu, 16 September 2010 14:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
So far I have only accounted the bug Ormus mentioned about damage not being dealt. Situation is I'm on a roof shooting down at a red shirt 12 tiles away with my Ruger mini-14, I hit the red shirt in the head with a 5.56mm round for 0 damage and he was not wearing any armour. I was not able to reproduce that situation again.


I currently have no idea why damage is working strangely. Please note however, that the JA2 Beta has lots of new features regarding damage resistance which I am not 100% familiar with. Still, I'm unable to reliably reproduce damage inconsistencies...

If one of you manages to get a savegame where the next shot reliably produces less damage than it should, please upload it together with your JA2_Options.INI file.

Quote:
Also have had the same situation as Alex with early red shirts not firing back due the low chance to hit and no cover closer to my position allowing me to just turkey shoot them. Changing the coolness values like you mentioned is a good idea.


Or teaching them to spray and pray...

Quote:
some SMG's like the Owen .45 and Thompson that have 3x 8y 3/5bap recoil seem too powerful for mercs


Well, for diversity, some of the lower coolness guns were given very high recoil so that you can't use for for long full auto volleys at all. At higher coolness of course most guns can take a bipod, and you're expected to use them that way. If you guys think that's a little much, please let me know.

Quote:
also it is possible to shoot over buildings and hit redshirts!


Hehehehe that's a caveat I'm not sure how to solve. On the one hand everyone was asking for the ability to shoot enemies without a direct LOS (for instance, shooting through walls). On the other hand, when that is allowed, you can hit enemies behind obstacles if they are also outside range, by firing upwards. If someone can come up with a good solution to this, I'll try to implement it.

Quote:
Another point: I have tried to use decimal numbers for auto and burst penalties instead of integers.


It's not just UDB that converts them to integers - the system READS them as integers. Decimal values are pointless here. I may implement them in the future, but there simply isn't room enough in UDB to show decimal point numbers like that (the bonus column would need to show things like "+1.2" when there's only room for 3 characters at most).


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262770] Thu, 16 September 2010 15:15 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ko5ma

 
Messages:35
Registered:January 2010
Location: Poland
Headrock
I currently have no idea why damage is working strangely. Please note however, that the JA2 Beta has lots of new features regarding damage resistance which I am not 100% familiar with. Still, I'm unable to reliably reproduce damage inconsistencies...

If one of you manages to get a savegame where the next shot reliably produces less damage than it should, please upload it together with your JA2_Options.INI file.

I've had this happen multiple times, difficult to repeat unless i save before every shot. Will try to do it though.

Quote:
Also have had the same situation as Alex with early red shirts not firing back due the low chance to hit and no cover closer to my position allowing me to just turkey shoot them. Changing the coolness values like you mentioned is a good idea.

This happens quite often to me as well, and is pretty annoying... Haven't reached high coolness yet though.

Quote:
Hehehehe that's a caveat I'm not sure how to solve. On the one hand everyone was asking for the ability to shoot enemies without a direct LOS (for instance, shooting through walls). On the other hand, when that is allowed, you can hit enemies behind obstacles if they are also outside range, by firing upwards. If someone can come up with a good solution to this, I'll try to implement it.

Noooo, don't fix it! It's not a bug, it's a feature! Very Happy
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262786] Thu, 16 September 2010 20:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Mauser

 
Messages:770
Registered:August 2006
Location: Bavaria - Germany
Headrock
They should be, compared to non-scopes weapons, at a range. In other words, there are two places where scopes can be outdone by non-scoped weapons: at close range, and foregripped/bipoded automatics. At close range the scopes are rubbish, and properly-stabilized automatic can hit a target at high range even without a scope (but with lots of bullets spent). So yes, the role of scopes is now much more important, as well as using the correct scope for the given range.


well, i could imagine that once bigger maps become a functional and integral feature for 1.13, this will all work out quite well. since scoped weapons will become much more important with the greater available ranges at which they can be employed.
but of course, having rifles that can shoot precisely from one end of the map to the other would be quite imbalanced, especially since the enemy AI still isn

☆★GL★☆
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262790] Thu, 16 September 2010 20:53 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ormus n2o

 
Messages:31
Registered:March 2010
Location: Poland; Wielkopolska; Pi&...
Quote:

Hehehehe that's a caveat I'm not sure how to solve. On the one hand everyone was asking for the ability to shoot enemies without a direct LOS (for instance, shooting through walls). On the other hand, when that is allowed, you can hit enemies behind obstacles if they are also outside range, by firing upwards. If someone can come up with a good solution to this, I'll try to implement it.


Just lower damage by range. When bullet drop down it have much less speed. Idk what execly but in pistols 1/2 od 1/3 is nothing special. Less speed is less penetration, less damage and less shock.
Now i don't have acces to computer but when my computer will come i will give that save with low damage.
http://www.sklep.soft-pc.pl/galerie/c/coolermaster-elite-310-b_10133.jpg
Very Happy
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262794] Thu, 16 September 2010 21:33 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Maalstroom

 
Messages:342
Registered:December 2008
Location: en route to San Hermanos

Quote:
Hehehehe that's a caveat I'm not sure how to solve. On the one hand everyone was asking for the ability to shoot enemies without a direct LOS (for instance, shooting through walls). On the other hand, when that is allowed, you can hit enemies behind obstacles if they are also outside range, by firing upwards. If someone can come up with a good solution to this, I'll try to implement it.

Noooo, don't fix it! It's not a bug, it's a feature! laugh

yeap don't change this please!
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262795] Thu, 16 September 2010 21:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Headrock

It's not just UDB that converts them to integers - the system READS them as integers. Decimal values are pointless here. I may implement them in the future, but there simply isn't room enough in UDB to show decimal point numbers like that (the bonus column would need to show things like "+1.2" when there's only room for 3 characters at most).

Well, let us take this example: Y deviation of 4 vs Y deviation of 4.4

10 tiles: 5,71 vs 6.29 ( difference of 0,57)
20 tiles: 11,43 vs 12,57 (difference -1,14)
30 tiles: 17,14 vs 18.85 (difference -1,71)
40 tiles: 22.85 vs 25.14 (difference 2,28)

This could be for example the difference between the recoil of Colt M4 and AK74. While there is no room in EDB I suppose that it would still be extremely useful to allow decimals here (especially at the stage weapons.xml are being tested and adjusted). Those decimals could make the difference between the same weapons with different barrel lengths. This will let us to give every weapon its own unique characteristics. In other case we would have many guns with the recoil (for example) of Y:5; x:0.

Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262977] Sun, 19 September 2010 01:02 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Increaseng the "normal shooting distance" from 70 to 160 does not give any changes to CTH cursor (using iron sights). At the same time bullets seem to fly a lot more accurate (or it is a pure luck). If the bug is not reproducible will provide some screenshots and save games.

Changes while using the sniper scope seem to be displayed properly (CTH decreases for a 10-x scope at 25 tiles)

[Updated on: Sun, 19 September 2010 01:05] by Moderator

Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #262982] Sun, 19 September 2010 04:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
Increaseng the "normal shooting distance" from 70 to 160 does not give any changes to CTH cursor (using iron sights).


There should be no effect on the visible CTH with iron sights whatsoever, so this is fine.

Quote:
At the same time bullets seem to fly a lot more accurate (or it is a pure luck).


Well that is the desired effect. By increasing Normal to 16 tiles, you're essentially as accurate at that range as you would be at 7 tiles in the "original" setting.

Quote:
Changes while using the sniper scope seem to be displayed properly (CTH decreases for a 10-x scope at 25 tiles)


Ummm, what?


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263001] Sun, 19 September 2010 13:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Headrock,

Just a quick note:

Gus underestimated a guy with a tiny SMG. He paid for his mistake taking 4 of 6 round burst into his chest. While trying to help him Ivan did not noticed a guy coming from the back, armed with SMG. You understand, he would not come back home.

When the team realized that they faced a serious trouble they have lost 2 of 6 men. Half of the team was suppressed.

And then arrived reinforcements from the adjacent sector. Those beasts were armed with AR. All my team died.
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263004] Sun, 19 September 2010 14:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Ormus n2o

 
Messages:31
Registered:March 2010
Location: Poland; Wielkopolska; Pi&...
@Alex_SPB
It is ok. They are dead but they are not real. And hey, they will never complain again Very Happy.
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263030] Sun, 19 September 2010 20:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
Those beasts were armed with AR. All my team died.


So I take it that once the enemy gets ARs with scopes, they become really dangerous. Smile Good.

BTW I haven't mentioned this earlier, so I will now: As with HAM Suppression, NCTH generally "evens the odds" on the battlefield between mercs and enemies. Suppression increases the importance of numerical superiority (which enemies already have), and NCTH reduces your ability to exploit CTH to your advantage. The result is that INSANE battles of 6 vs. 80 (or, even 6 vs. 40) should be very difficult if not impossible.

This means that you have two choices:
A) Reduce difficulty. We've all gotten used to playing INSANE for its challenge value, because in the vanilla 1.13 even Expert difficulty was simply not difficult enough. So now, Expert difficulty is truly the realm of experts, and INSANE is... as hard as it sounds Wink
B) Increase the number of mercs under your control. This may require increasing the Mine Income INI setting. You can also try hiring mobile militia and taking them to combat with you. In any case, try to bring the same number of friendlies into a battle as there are enemies, or at least close to that. Again, at very high difficulty this could prove impossible, which is why you shouldn't play at that difficulty until you're comfortable with NCTH.
C) CTHConstants.INI contains a set of modifiers based on difficulty - these are applied only to ENEMIES, and as you can see by the default values enemies in INSANE get +50% to their base and aiming CTH. I MAY have exaggerated a little there, so if you do play Expert or Insane you might want to nerf these values down a bit. If you get a better feel to the game, please report the values you're using.


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263040] Sun, 19 September 2010 22:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Nickfighter

 
Messages:118
Registered:December 2007
Location: Poland
@Headrock,
I actually never played any other difficulty than novice, and I don't plan to Very Happy
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263041] Sun, 19 September 2010 23:10 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Hmmm well in that case I wouldn't recommend NCTH to you. Very Happy

But hey, you never know until you try.


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263052] Mon, 20 September 2010 00:45 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
One of the main exploits within the old CTH was the one shot - one hit mechanics. We were always able to kill the most dangerous guy within a turn. Even if we imagine that AI is as accurate as the player and use the same (one shot - one hit) mechanics the player would still have a serious advantage just properly prioritizing the targets (as the human player will always do it better then AI).

If we dramatically decrease the successful hit statistics (as it is now while playing without the scopes comparing to the vanilla CTH system) we make the enemy extremely dangerous. As a fact 2 cores of our tactics does not work now:

1) We are not sure we will take out this particular red shirt guy within a turn
2) It is very likely that he will hit someone (on his own turn)

This two facts lead to some serious consequences: it is easier now to be surrounded by enemy, it is easier now to get suppressed, the chances being hit are a lot higher, fighting while being outnumbered is extremely difficult.

A combat against the enemy armed with SMG-s and short barreled assault rifles at the forest sector was a real challenge. The fight against an enemy armed with M16 like guns would be a nightmare.

This is the main reason of the increased difficulty as I see it. The only way to counteract AI is to use better tactics (smart movement, smart cover, smart weapon choice). This is a completely new feel JA2 has newer provided before.

I am afraid that massive usage of scopes would kill part of the fun. But we have to check it Smile
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263058] Mon, 20 September 2010 04:58 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
If we dramatically decrease the successful hit statistics (as it is now while playing without the scopes comparing to the vanilla CTH system) we make the enemy extremely dangerous.


The idea, however, was to do the same thing for the use of scopes, so that you don't suddenly go back to being uber-accurate once they appear. This was handled in several ways:
1) Introducing set accuracy for the gun so that even the best aimed shots won't always hit the target, unless the gun itself is that good.
2) CTH Cap, which prevents all but the most accurate shooters from aiming perfectly at their targets.
3) Target tracking speed, which (when combined with the above) makes hitting a moving target at 50 tiles virtually impossible.

At the same time of course, scopes are made useless at close ranges, interfering with the gun instead of helping, which makes sure you can't exploit them to be accurate at close range.

This works thanks to the separation of Gun Range from CTH: Guns with high range used to have better CTH at any distance, the only drawback was their high AP costs and as you said that didn't matter with a gun that can kill a guy with one hit anyway. So now, long-range guns (which are obviously larger) get penalties simply from being too big to handle, and so you NEED a bipod and a good scope to actually use them as intended, something which is not doable at close range.

The only caveat is that at very close range (1-2 tiles) any gun will hit all the time... the only thing I can do against that is introduce grappling (random chance for the target to fight for the weapon, preventing the shot completely and wasting the shooter's APs).

Quote:
As a fact 2 cores of our tactics does not work now:

1) We are not sure we will take out this particular red shirt guy within a turn
2) It is very likely that he will hit someone (on his own turn)


Enemies are only more likely to hit you than you are to hit them if you're playing on higher difficulties. You can remove this likelyhood (or add it to lower difficulties) in the CTHConstants.INI.

Personally I'm not sure they should even get those bonuses, because I think the game is hard enough as it is even without them. Enemies should win through sheer firepower, which is the single major advantage they have over the mercs (plus being better-equipped than the mercs, though that isn't always true). In other words - the enemy team shoots more times than you do, and hence it has a better probability to hit you, or even suppress you.

Quote:
The fight against an enemy armed with M16 like guns would be a nightmare.


I would assume so, unless you're equipped similarly or at least close to that. Out in the open country, inferior equipment will get you killed. In urban areas however you can get by with short-ranged weapons. This adds a dimension of trying to avoid encounters in the wild unless well-equipped, travel by night whenever possible, and try to lure enemy groups you wish to destroy into areas where their equipment advantage matters less. Strategy and tactics Smile

Quote:
I am afraid that massive usage of scopes would kill part of the fun. But we have to check it


Let me know!


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263061] Mon, 20 September 2010 05:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
howareyou32

 
Messages:419
Registered:March 2009
Location: New York, New York
I have to find some time to play Ham4. thanks Rocky.
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263062] Mon, 20 September 2010 06:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Friendly Fire

 
Messages:75
Registered:January 2006
I lurk a lot and I must say this project is fascinating.
I am impatient to try the new feeling it will give to firefights.
At the moment, even mediocre shooters are guaranteed a hit with the proper equipment and it is not satisfactory. All the deciding factors reside in the attachments.
What I see coming with NCTH is the increased importance of grenades and bombs (aiming at the ground is not affected by enemy movement).
My impression is that enemies and militia can throw their grenades very far and that could cause a problem.
Grappling for the gun is a very good idea, making the HtH trait valuable. Would that option depend on available action points ?
Thank you for your work.
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263097] Mon, 20 September 2010 19:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
loonyphoenix

 
Messages:45
Registered:September 2010
Hey, I've got a question. With this new aiming system, it seems plausible to make characters with a small body type more difficult to hit. Smile This advantage could be offset by making the smaller body type less strong and agile; something like 0,90 effective strength and agility modifier and 0,95 chance to hit modifier. The same could apply, in reverse, to big beasts and vehicles (double chance to hit a bloodcat or a bug, triple chance to hit a tank).

Just a thought. I actually have no idea if the body type has any impact on characters' performance right now.
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263099] Mon, 20 September 2010 19:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
sorca_2

 
Messages:202
Registered:September 2010
Location: California, USA
Headrock
The idea, however, was to do the same thing for the use of scopes, so that you don't suddenly go back to being uber-accurate once they appear.

My favorite thing about all of these changes is that now there will be more of a reason to have second and even third weapons. I've always had them, but in my last game I had a hard time trying to find a reason to switch Igor off of the M21 EBR once I got it. Like you're saying, you'll have to use strategy and tactics to exploit the fact that the enemy, while heavily armed, usually only uses one weapon type per soldier. You'll have to maneuver to maximize the strengths of your equipment and neutralize theirs. I get why some people might be thinking that it will only be harder, but somehow it sounds like it might be strangely intuitive.

I'm curious how the role of shotguns will change as well, hopefully for the better.
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263117] Mon, 20 September 2010 22:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
lockie

 
Messages:3832
Registered:February 2006
Location: Scotland
Quote:
Poster: howareyou32
Subject: Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread

I have to find some time to play Ham4. thanks Rocky.


Stay off you-tube for a coupla days , play JA and enjoy life , such as it is , it is all we get , fretfullness won't make you happy , Howie , Killing Queen D will... Smile


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263134] Tue, 21 September 2010 00:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Luppolo

 
Messages:151
Registered:July 2009
due to a strike, university lessons will start 2 weeks later here

so if there is still room for a tester....
Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263143] Tue, 21 September 2010 02:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1774
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
All the deciding factors reside in the attachments.


Actually that's also true in NCTH - attachments help a LOT, and they SHOULD. However, shooter skills are now much more important. For instance, in the old system you would give your accurate sniping weapons to the newbie mercs (the ones with lower mrk/dex) because the weapon itself would easily counter the penalties from low skills. That is no longer possible, thanks to CTH Cap. A low MRK/DEX merc will not be able to maximize the potential of any long-range weapon. If anything, they should be given guns that fire lots of bullets (with the understanding that many bullets will be wasted, of course). Alternately, give them short-range weapons and send them in to close combat.

Quote:
What I see coming with NCTH is the increased importance of grenades and bombs (aiming at the ground is not affected by enemy movement).


Well, grenades have never used CTH, nor will they use NCTH. At the moment, grenade throwing works satisfactorily well.

Quote:
My impression is that enemies and militia can throw their grenades very far and that could cause a problem.


I have yet to figure out why enemies can throw so far and so accurately. Perhaps it was done to give them an "edge". I don't like that advantage, and will eventually remove it if I can find how it happens, but if it destabilizes game balance I may have to put the bonus back.

Quote:
Grappling for the gun is a very good idea, making the HtH trait valuable. Would that option depend on available action points ?


In theory, yes. But I'm not sure what will I'll actually do with this.

Quote:
My favorite thing about all of these changes is that now there will be more of a reason to have second and even third weapons.


Not only a reason, but quite a prerogative, at least for mercs whose main weapon is long-ranged.

Quote:
I'm curious how the role of shotguns will change as well, hopefully for the better.


Well, given that weapons are now much less likely to hit targets, a shotgun with a choke may be a serious alternative to mid-range weapons. That's on top of the advantage that shotguns get due to the HAM Suppression system (they generate a LOT of suppression). I haven't tested buckshot yet though - so if someone has, please let me know.


Re: HAM 4.0 Alpha Testing Thread[message #263250] Wed, 22 September 2010 12:02 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
johno

 
Messages:44
Registered:August 2007
Haven't been able to play because my mouse kept double clicking which made it quite frustrating to play, borrowing another persons mouse now.

I encountered a bug where u can over aim, spending more ap's to increase your muzzle sway.

A video of the bug http://www.megaupload.com/?d=ETI3N2TY

save game http://www.megaupload.com/?d=QAUCKECM

PS. when i was first recording JA2 fraps would only record the window, but now its changed to record my whole screen and i cant seem to change it to record the window only. Does anyone know how to set fraps to record the window only? (i run ja2 in windowed mode).
Previous Topic: WF6.06 Mod Part 2
Next Topic: New Starting Gear Interface
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Tue Jun 02 18:47:27 EEST 2020

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01913 seconds