Home » MODDING HQ 1.13 » v1.13 Idea Incubation Lab  » HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!!
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295592] Thu, 22 December 2011 12:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
ChonkE

 
Messages:17
Registered:January 2008
Location: Utah
What do you mean "reasonable"? It is all about what you are willing to spend. You can get a "Unicorn" scope with a true 1x power both eye open shooting capability that has even lenses and foci points (and weight) to zoom in to 12x power or a 5x-20x or whatever you are willing to pay. Light gathering, objectives, lens coatings, inert gas fillers, nitrogen purging, tactical turrets w/set zero blah blah blah blah blah. $$$$. The glass is out there. Not all of us have mineral resources to mine and sell for arms. Our heroes(?) do! Most standard DMR/close-range hunting optics which offer both eye open shooting range from 1x-4x. Many variable power hunting optics are 3x-9x, 4x-12x. Bench shooters and snipers like bigger stuff now.

As far as the night bonus on the ACOG thing; you cannot hit what you cannot see, so if you do not have proper distance, lighting, background, technological advantage or otherwise... well no bueno. The ACOG is nice for certain applications but it certainly doesn't see in the dark. It is a durable, rugged fixed power battle sight that allows for quick and rapid target acquisition and transition. In low-light/dusk that chevron is a nice advantage though.

Headrock, Snipers and DMRs should be uber-useful! Smile Just sayin'
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295671] Sat, 24 December 2011 12:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Randok

 
Messages:299
Registered:March 2004
Location: Poland
I do not know. Maybe someone already posted about this but in one sector unless the snow falls. Super Smile . It could be a little thicker. Is this snow has an impact on visibility and accuracy?
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295674] Sat, 24 December 2011 18:23 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PasHancock

 
Messages:738
Registered:February 2011
Location: Estonia,Tallinn
i was playing ja right now and i noticed that 3 enemies ran into flames(i threw molotov and 3 soldiers ran into it).I think this should be fixed with HAM
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295675] Sat, 24 December 2011 18:41 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
They probably thought their gas mask would protect them.


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295676] Sat, 24 December 2011 18:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PasHancock

 
Messages:738
Registered:February 2011
Location: Estonia,Tallinn
thats what i mean.This should be fixed if possible
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295687] Sun, 25 December 2011 12:43 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

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

I am extremely glad that you are back. I will download and test HAM. But before this i would like to ask a question i wanted to ask while you were designing NCTH. Unfortunately you left the forum before I managed to do this Sad

Have you ever considered making a "draw cost" as a separate weapons.xml tag? For example if there is no separate xml entry everything is calculated as it is now. If there is a separate .xml entry then the draw cost value is taken from this xml tag.

This will greatly enhance the flexibility of the system.

Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295688] Sun, 25 December 2011 12:50 Go to previous messageGo to next message
PasHancock

 
Messages:738
Registered:February 2011
Location: Estonia,Tallinn
how to turn off snow?
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295690] Sun, 25 December 2011 13:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
knightofni

 
Messages:101
Registered:August 2011
Alex_SPB
Headrock,
Have you ever considered making a "draw cost" as a separate weapons.xml tag? For example if there is no separate xml entry everything is calculated as it is now. If there is a separate .xml entry then the draw cost value is taken from this xml tag.



Hi Alex,

If i'm not mistaken, "AP to draw" is in weapons.xml as :
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295693] Sun, 25 December 2011 14:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

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

Hi Alex,

If i'm not mistaken, "AP to draw" is in weapons.xml as :


Yes, it is, but this approach has several weak points. For example let us compare 2 guns: M4 and IWI Tavor TAR 21. Both guns are equipped with iron sights only. As Tavor is a bullpup and especially designed for close quarters combat, it is more easy to rise this gun than M4. This means that Tavor should have lower then M4.

Both guns have the same barrel length and quality and shoot the same round. However M4 has longer sightline (space between front and rear iron sights) then Tavor (equipped with iron sights only) and will allow to produce much better aimed shots in real life. In NCTH Tavor would allow to be better aimed then M4 (opposite to real life) as the single value is used both to estimate time to prepare weapon for shooting (raise time) and efficiency of aiming.

My real life shooting experience tells me that the assumption "lower ready time = more accurate aiming" is not 100% true.

As of now it is extremely difficult to adjust existing draw cost mechanics for the example with Tavor and M4 described above via XML. A new entry would simplify the whole process a lot.

[Updated on: Sun, 25 December 2011 14:09] by Moderator

Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295695] Sun, 25 December 2011 15:07 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
While Headrock's original plan used Draw cost, the NCTH implemented by ChrisL in stock v1.13 has a separate "handling" value. Starwalker came up with those values.

I think you may be confusing my efforts to re-balance NCTH for my projects - Draw is used to produce initial Handling values that are later manually tweaked. See: NCTH Handling Rethink Spreadsheet The values have already been implemented in my two most recent mods that are meant to demo other HAM 5 features.

AFS v3.60RC2b-HAM5 Optimized 20111219

Urban Chaos-1.13 v3.60 RC6-HAM5 20111221 This one also can be run under the latest of Tais' "Unstable" SCI.


EDIT: also, discussion has been tilting towards using things like "sight length" (M4 vs Tavor) in deriving the NCTH Accuracy stat, instead of handling, which I'm using to represent the ergonomics of operating a specific weapon. Additionally I haven't addressed the issue of built-in iron sights, beyond giving all rifles a 10 bonus to NCTH Cap, and having all scopes erase that bonus. 1st Gen Tavor-21's have integral scopes, and therefore don't express a 10 NCTH Cap bonus (the scope bonuses more than make up for this).

[Updated on: Sun, 25 December 2011 15:12] by Moderator



Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295696] Sun, 25 December 2011 15:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
Hmm, what does the tag mean? I have not seen this before in earlier version of HAM, there only was in weapons.xml
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295697] Sun, 25 December 2011 15:32 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
I'm on my way out the door right now, so I'll quote ChrisL from the NCTH Discussion on What Exactly We Have Right Now (as far as XML Tags) thread:

ChrisL
Weapon handling is used by the NCTH calculation to modify hit chances based on how cumbersome a weapon is. The idea here is that small, light weight weapons will be easier to control and 'stabilize' then large, heavy weapons.
Originally, NCTH didn't have a Handling tag. Instead, it used the ubReadyTime to determine the handling modifier. I added the Handling tag to give modders more control over weapon handling and to resolve a problem where ubReadyTime=0 weapons were getting no handling modifiers at all. I never got around to adding information for this tag to the UDB interface. I'll add that to my todo list.



Now of course, I started that thread before Headrock became active on the forum again, so now we have two perspectives on NCTH mechanics. Additionally Headrock did say something about eventually double checking how Handling is actually being used. There's some question as to where this value takes effect, and its overall effect on hitting things in-game.


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295698] Sun, 25 December 2011 15:34 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Alex_SPB

 
Messages:170
Registered:February 2008
Location: Russia, St.Petersburg
@wil473:

Have not seen you post prior to writing the previous comment. So do I get it right that NCTH handling is being calculated from the separate tag? If so this is a great and long-waited addition. Shame I have not spotted this earlier.

Quote:

also, discussion has been tilting towards using things like "sight length" (M4 vs Tavor) in deriving the NCTH Accuracy stat


As far as I remember the initial "accuracy" purpose was to simulate weapon qualities that affect hit probability but can not be taken into account during the aiming process (for example quality of the barrel). Initially the visible aperture size did not change if "accuracy" value was changed. However the real aperture size was adjusted on accuracy values.

[Updated on: Sun, 25 December 2011 15:37] by Moderator

Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295712] Sun, 25 December 2011 21:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Soren

 
Messages:14
Registered:December 2011
One more 'feature'? Or maybe it is a bug ...

Inseparable Default Attachments are immutable.

To expand:
Initially (before I had forum access, back in like 5.1), I made integral stocks inseparable. Of course, they are default attachments, too. However, if you tried to transform them (this was before the nasty crash bug, which was recently fixed in 5.5+), they would LOOK like they switched in the UDB panel (name would change, as would the stats), but when you closed the UDB panel, the stock remained in the original state (whichever one is defined as the default attachment). You could unattach the stock (Shift+F), and then transform it, as well as reattach it, but once again if you tried to transform it, it 'stuck' in the default state.

To fix it, I simply made the integral stocks non-inseparable (that is, normal), and the problem disappeared.

In the new version, the stock doesn't even try to transform. Attempting to transform it exits the UDB instantly and no transformation occurs. If the stocks are removable, then there is no problem whatsoever.

Given that removing 'inseparable' attachments is easy, I don't find this to be a troublesome bug, but I thought it should be reported.

Happy Holidays, all ... (I like the snow, btw)
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295713] Sun, 25 December 2011 22:36 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
While Headrock's original plan used Draw cost, the NCTH implemented by ChrisL in stock v1.13 has a separate "handling" value. Starwalker came up with those values.


From what I saw, the values in 1.13 are actually 1:1 with the Draw costs. I.E. the end result was just copying all the values from APtoReady to Handling. Maybe I'm mistaken. What I think may be true is that Starwalker added various modifiers based on internal attachments (folding stocks, primarily) to differentiate some weapons...

But I don't know this for a fact - I was not around at the time, so it's just my impression.

Quote:
Additionally Headrock did say something about eventually double checking how Handling is actually being used. There's some question as to where this value takes effect, and its overall effect on hitting things in-game.


Yeah, I really should get to doing that. The thing is I want to finish playing the game first - I've been gone too long to work on this without some proper hands-on experience. Can't learn the code as well if you don't know how it behaves in game. So it'll probably take a little longer.

Quote:
So do I get it right that NCTH handling is being calculated from the separate tag? If so this is a great and long-waited addition. Shame I have not spotted this earlier.


Yes, Chris spotted and fixed this almost straight away - it was something I had planned to do and left quite unfinished, so it's a good thing it wasn't left the way it was. Of course, had he not done it, I would've done it as the first HAM 5 feature... In either case, it works AND is displayed in the UDB so you can see the value for yourself. The modifiers for it appear in the ADVANCED tab, since they are stance-based.

Quote:
Quote:
also, discussion has been tilting towards using things like "sight length" (M4 vs Tavor) in deriving the NCTH Accuracy stat
As far as I remember the initial "accuracy" purpose was to simulate weapon qualities that affect hit probability but can not be taken into account during the aiming process (for example quality of the barrel).


Two comments on this. First, Alex is absolutely correct on this. Accuracy is a value entirely representing how well the weapon can put its bullets to where it is aimed, and thus should never be intermingled with snapshot/aiming performance (aperture size). Therefore Wil, I think that sight length is actually not at all a factor on accuracy.

In fact, possibly the best simulation of the effects of sight-length would be an Aiming Modifier: Does not affect snap-shooting, but does affect aiming.

Quote:
Initially the visible aperture size did not change if "accuracy" value was changed. However the real aperture size was adjusted on accuracy values.


True and false there.

On the visible aperture size: It was originally intended to show ONLY the shooter's effect on the shot. Accuracy was not shown; as I saw it, there was no reason to show accuracy in the targeting cursor at all, because UDB already gives us the exact value (which is used as-is by the firing mechanism).

ChrisL argued that accuracy should be shown as part of the aperture cursor, and for that he introduced a little "cheat": expanding the visible aperture by the maximum deviation of the bullet, thus giving a visible effect of larger apertures for less-accurate guns. This effectively discourages things like pistol shots to sniper ranges, because the player can clearly see that he's got no chance in hell, even with the best possible scope and the best shooter.

However this is still a cheat. The reason is that system-wise, accuracy and aiming are entirely separate. There is actually no good way I can think of of showing the both of them simultaneously at all. So the expansion effect is, to some extent, misleading. Whether or not accuracy should be factored into the visible aperture size or not is therefore a tangled discussion.

So yes, initially the cursor showed only aiming, as originally intended. Right now, the cursor is adjusted based on accuracy as well, but in a misleading way. In truth, the two are utterly separate. The muzzle is aimed first, then set to a random direction, then the bullet's trajectory is set along another random direction related to the muzzle's new angle. One depends on the other, but they do not interact.

------------

Answer to Soren in the next post.


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295714] Sun, 25 December 2011 22:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
In the new version, the stock doesn't even try to transform. Attempting to transform it exits the UDB instantly and no transformation occurs. If the stocks are removable, then there is no problem whatsoever.


What you described about causing a change that only affects UDB (and doesn't affect the actual item) is known to me, and is something I've been grappling with. I thought I got rid of that problem though, so learning that it still occurs with some attachments is puzzling.

Fortunately I know where to look for the problem, so it shouldn't be too difficult.

Quote:

Given that removing 'inseparable' attachments is easy, I don't find this to be a troublesome bug, but I thought it should be reported.


No, it's good that you reported it. I'll have a go at this tonight, if I can make the XMLs for it...

Quote:

Happy Holidays, all ... (I like the snow, btw)


Very Happy


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295716] Mon, 26 December 2011 00:30 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
@ Soren:

I've managed to reproduce the bug, and even discovered why it is happening. Unfortunately, the fix may be extremely difficult to implement. I'm going to need to discuss it here because it's hard figuring it out for myself to begin with.

The error occurs when checking whether the parent item (in this case, a gun) can take all of its attachments after one of them (the inseperable one) is altered.

What the game does is this:
A) Erase all inseperable default attachments from the gun.
B) Copy all remaining attachments to memory
C) Erase all attachments on the gun.
D) Recreate all default inseperable attachments and put them on the gun.
E) Reattach all items from the memory attachment list.

Lets take for example a gun with an internal (default inseperable) scope 2x. We define a transformation that changes from 2x to 4x. When we change the scope, this is what happens nominally:

A) The 2x Scope is erased, because it's one of the gun's default inseperable attachments.
B) Any other attachments are copied to memory.
C) All attachments are erased from the gun.
D) A new 2x Scope is attached to the gun, because it's one of the gun's default inseperable attachments.
E) All other attachments in memory are reattached.

Actually that's what's "supposed" to happen - but there's an extra problem that causes this EVEN WEIRDER thing to happen:

A) The 2x Scope isn't erased, because we've already changed the item into a 4x scope by this point.
B) The 4x scope and any other attachments are copies into memory.
C) All attachments are erased from the gun.
D) A new 2x Scope is attached to the gun.
E) The game fails to put the 4x Scope on the gun, and seeing that it is an inseperable attachment itself, simply deletes it!
F) All other attachments in memory are reattached.

So there are several problems to solve here - unfortunately I have no idea how. For one, the function I'm using appears to be extremely important, so I can't easily change it. Furthermore, if I did change it somehow, it's possible that any other transformation you perform would again cause the gun to have a 2x Scope.

And of course, how do I even begin to instruct the program to do this correctly? I'd need to figure out how to not create a new default attachment in the same slot as the one that was transformed, and that could be even more tricky...

So I'm going to have to put this off until I can have a long and thorough examination of this problem with Warmsteel (who wrote the function I'm using) to see if there's any decent way out. I don't know how long this will take...

Also in the event that we do fail to solve the problem, what should happen? Should default inseperable attachments be impossible to transform? If so, what happens to internal stocks in some systems?

This is very confusing...

[EDIT: BTW, I see one reasonable way out of this issue: Make two identical versions of the gun itself, but with two different default attachments set for the two versions. Transforming the gun would transform the attachment without changing anything else. Yeah, it's an ugly workaround, but it will achieve the same thing you've been trying to do - and with even fewer clicks...]


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295717] Mon, 26 December 2011 02:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
CptMoore

 
Messages:210
Registered:March 2009
Headrock
Lets take for example a gun with an internal (default inseperable) scope 2x. We define a transformation that changes from 2x to 4x. When we change the scope, this is what happens nominally:

A) The 2x Scope is erased, because it's one of the gun's default inseperable attachments.
B) Any other attachments are copied to memory.
C) All attachments are erased from the gun.
D) A new 2x Scope is attached to the gun, because it's one of the gun's default inseperable attachments.
E) All other attachments in memory are reattached.


Where is the actual step where 2x becomes 4x? I'm very confused about this being the expected behaviour.
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295718] Mon, 26 December 2011 02:42 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
It happens just prior to this function being run. I can't explain in too much detail though.

The problem all stems from the fact that the function I'm using will attempt to reinstall all the default attachments on the gun BEFORE its original attachments (i.e. the ones it had prior to the transformations) are reattached to it. The function is SUPPOSED to do this, but of course for transformation purposes it's not a good idea: if we transform a default attachment, the above doesn't happen correctly and we end up with the same attachment instead of a new one.

I've talked with Warmsteel about this and he's suggested using another function which works in a different way. Unfortunately, that function is written a little cryptically (and we've already spotted at least one thing that makes absolutely no sense in it). So I have no idea what will actually happen if I tried using it instead - or (if it worked) what situations it would screw up.

This is very tricky stuff here.

[EDIT: For those of you interested, the function I'm running is ReInitMergedItem(). It runs AFTER the attachment has been changed to a new usItem. Warmsteel suggested using RemoveProhibitedAttachments() instead.]


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295730] Mon, 26 December 2011 17:12 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Headrock
Two comments on this. First, Alex is absolutely correct on this. Accuracy is a value entirely representing how well the weapon can put its bullets to where it is aimed, and thus should never be intermingled with snapshot/aiming performance (aperture size). Therefore Wil, I think that sight length is actually not at all a factor on accuracy.

In fact, possibly the best simulation of the effects of sight-length would be an Aiming Modifier: Does not affect snap-shooting, but does affect aiming.


Sure, and and I think I may have been thinking this when I gave all Long Arms a +10 Cap bonus.

I think my next project will be to start thinking of better representation of built-in Iron Sights (which will of course factor in sight length). The way things are setup right now, I'm thinking of doing the following:

NCTH Cap = accuracy of iron sight

AK's have their own scopes/adapters = all AK's can share a NCTH Cap value that represents specifically lower than average accuracy of the built-in sighting gear

H&K G3/MP5 have their own scopes/adapters = all G3/MP5 weapons can share a NCTH Cap value that represents the specifics of the H&K drum/diopter sight

Most AR-15's are of the flat top variety = an attachment can handle the sights for most AR-15's, must be removed for a scope to fit.

The important thing in this system is that the Iron Sight effect be nulified when a scope is attached. ie. +7 Cap bonus on AK's = -7 Cap penalty on P.O. 3.5x21P Scope, Kobra Reflex, etc...


Re: the issue with inseparable attachments. Somewhat wary about possible work there, several weapons have attachments that appear and disappear between item transformations of the base weapon. At the same time, the "bug" sounds like it may affect plans for a variable power OICW computerized sighting system (the sights are planned to be inseparable attachments, and one must be a default attachment). I've got a day off tomorrow and wanted to get some work in on this.


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295734] Mon, 26 December 2011 19:08 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Well, as I said it's possible that the only real solution to this problem would be that to change default inseparable attachments you'd need to make two copies of the same gun with different defaults.

Instead of this:
G36 with default inseperable 2x optics.
--------------------
2x can transform into 4x
4x can trasnform into 2x


You'd have this:
G36 with default inseparable 2x optics (weapon A),
G36 with default inseparable 4x optics (weapon B), not buyable
--------------------
Weapon A transforms into Weapon B
Weapon B transforms into Weapon A


Not sure there IS any other solution...


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295745] Tue, 27 December 2011 02:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Soren

 
Messages:14
Registered:December 2011
The question in my mind is how vitally important the problem is. Given how the code works, it seems there is no logical workaround without building a separate set of tools to handle transformation (you'd have to hold everything in memory for a bit, which is not really how JA2 seems to handle items).

In my case, I really don't think it's a big deal that I can 'remove' an integral stock or bipod. They're only valid attachments on guns that have integral stocks or bipods, and if you buy one from BR, you get one already. The value of said stock or bipod is zero, the weight is near zero, no one will buy it from me. The only reason to save an integral stock/bipod is as a replacement or if the enemy drops a gun without an integral accessory.

If you define your integral items like that, I think it is unnecessary to make them inseparable. Just make sure the gun can't take anything else at that slot either.
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295764] Tue, 27 December 2011 11:17 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JMich

 
Messages:580
Registered:January 2011
Location: Greece
Headrock
What the game does is this:
A) Erase all inseperable default attachments from the gun.
B) Copy all remaining attachments to memory
C) Erase all attachments on the gun.
D) Recreate all default inseperable attachments and put them on the gun.
E) Reattach all items from the memory attachment list.


Proposal, though I haven't seen the function yet, so not sure if it can work or not

A) Transform the Attachment
B) All attachments are copied to memory.
C) All attachments are erased from the gun.
D) All attachments in memory are reattached.
E) Any missing Default Attachments are attached

Wouldn't a simple change in the order of the functions solve this problem? It would require a bit more memory, since you'd have to copy all attachments to memory first, but isn't this the same procedure as with any gun that doesn't have any default attachments?
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295792] Tue, 27 December 2011 15:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
That's the theory, but as far as I understand it there was a reason why default attachments were being added first. Don't ask me what the reason is though - I'm having trouble understanding NAS altogether.


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295800] Tue, 27 December 2011 16:46 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Now that I'm not rushing off to work today, time to think about the whole transforming default attachment issue - and came up with a naive and probably silly question: if it is the default attachment being transformed, and not the base item/weapon, why is the base item/weapon's other attachment being checked?

Would it not be easier to stipulate that for transforming default/inseparable attachments, the most the game does is: 1) check that the attachment is in Attachments.XML 2) check that there is a viable (empty or the created attachment fits the same slot as the former default/inseparable attachment) NAS slot available, the transform does not happen if neither condition is met?

Now already I see a problem, with the above, what if after the default/inseparable attachment is transformed, the base item is transformed into something that has different default/inseparable attachments.

Example: Beretta ARX-160
- has folding stock
- will have a multi-mode scope (for the purpose of this discussion, a default/inseparable attachment)
- Multi-Mode Scope (MMS) has 2x and 4 x variations, both are inseparable, and the 2x also a default on the "Beretta ARX-160"

Case 1) Base item transform - How things work right now (and I'd like to keep working for base items)
- stock folds, "Beretta ARX-160" transforms into "ARX-160 Folded Stock"
- no change to the MMS 2x if it is present, otherwise the MMS 2x appears if it was missing on the original "Beretta ARX-160" was missing it due to known Map Editor issue
- This is Warmsteel's code that I've been leveraging for features and workarounds.

Case 2) Default/Inseparable Attachment Transform - The Problem, Part I (as I'm reading it)
- MMS 2x item transforms to the MMS 4x
- conceptually should not affect other attachments, as the modder is responsible for making sure the MMS 2x and MMS 4x fits the same slot properly

Case 3) Base Item Transform After Default/Inseparable Attachment has been transformed, The Problem, Part II
- start condition: "Beretta ARX-160" with a MMS 4x instead of the default MMS 2x
- stock fold: "Beretta ARX-160" item transforms to "ARX-160 Folded Stock"
- the problem is, how to handle the MMS 2x default/inseparable attachment vs the MMS 4x inseparable attachment that is attached at the time

Case3, Option 1) modders are responsible for not allowing Case 3) to occur, the ARX-160 MMS does not need to be an inseparable attachment

Case3, Option 2) present inseparable attachments take precedence, any inseparable/default attachments defined in Items.XML that cannot find a NAS slot to fit into are simply not added to the created base item
- "Beretta ARX-160" item transforms into "ARX-160 Folded Stock," the MMS 4x stays put, no MMS 2x is created despite it being a default/inseparable attachment for the "ARX-160 Folded Stock"

Case4, Option 3) Items.XML default/inseparable attachments take precedence, all inseparable attachments that cannot find a find free NAS slot after the base item transforms are simply discarded from the game (not dropped)
- "Beretta ARX-160" item transforms into "ARX-160 Folded Stock," the MMS 2x appears, the MMS 4x dissappears


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295808] Tue, 27 December 2011 19:22 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
if it is the default attachment being transformed, and not the base item/weapon, why is the base item/weapon's other attachment being checked?


I'm not much in favor of leaving this up to modders to figure out, unless I find no other option. The game has to check whether the new attachment fits in the same slot it occupied previously, and if not, move to any other slot it can occupy, and if not, be dropped to the inventory after transformation.

This is what Warmsteel's function does, and it should do this. The primary reason, I imagine, is that NAS slots can change for all sorts of reasons. So until we transform the attachment, we don't actually know what slots the weapon will have after the transformation.

Example:
Attachment A unlocks three new slots. All three are filled with other attachments.
Attachment A transforms into Attachment B.
Attachment B only unlocks two new slots. One existing attachment must be removed or moved to another slot.
This means we need to run through all attachments and check their validity. And move them to appropriate slots or to the inventory, if they aren't valid.

So in theory, I could modify the function -- or create a copy thereof -- so that only transformation or merger of the gun itself will trigger recreation of its inseparable default attachments. However, in the above example this may cause all sorts of weird shit...

Of course in practice I have no idea how the attachment slot system works to begin with... it's very complicated stuff and I don't have the time or strength of will to study it. But I do understand that this revalidation of the attachments after a merger (or in this case transformation, same thing) is required to avoid issues.

In addition, there could be all sorts of combinations we cannot even begin to anticipate. What if the transformed item is NOT inseperable, for instance? Or if the gun has default attachments that are seperable, like (I think) the SVD?

This is very confusing stuff.


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295809] Tue, 27 December 2011 19:40 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Default attachments that are not inseparable should never be created from mergers or item transformations due to the exploit potential. ie. unlimited supply of scopes EDIT: one of us really needs to create some kind of table to figure out when and if attachments can or should pop in and out of existence.

Something I didn't want to clutter my previous post with was potentially using the item transformation ability to "lock" attachments to a gun so that Shift-F doesn't remove them. ie. two copies of an attachment, one with the inseparable flag set, and the player could use the item transformation menu to alternate between the inseparable and removable forms while it is attached to the gun.

[Updated on: Tue, 27 December 2011 19:42] by Moderator



Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295814] Tue, 27 December 2011 20:49 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Quote:
one of us really needs to create some kind of table to figure out when and if attachments can or should pop in and out of existence.


... Well you're the table guy Wink . I'm just the guy who's supposed to make the desired results work Very Happy

Quote:
Something I didn't want to clutter my previous post with was potentially using the item transformation ability to "lock" attachments to a gun so that Shift-F doesn't remove them. ie. two copies of an attachment, one with the inseparable flag set, and the player could use the item transformation menu to alternate between the inseparable and removable forms while it is attached to the gun.



Whoa... don't you think that would create a ton of new items though? There are lots of attachments...

Hrm maybe you should wait until I've created the Item Templates system. Might make the work easier, or at least tidier.


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295815] Tue, 27 December 2011 21:16 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Guess I did volunteer for the work. Either we're all thinking about this too hard, or we will end up with a mess...


Headrock
Quote:
Something I didn't want to clutter my previous post with was potentially using the item transformation ability to "lock" attachments to a gun so that Shift-F doesn't remove them. ie. two copies of an attachment, one with the inseparable flag set, and the player could use the item transformation menu to alternate between the inseparable and removable forms while it is attached to the gun.



Whoa... don't you think that would create a ton of new items though? There are lots of attachments...

Hrm maybe you should wait until I've created the Item Templates system. Might make the work easier, or at least tidier.


Sorry, forgot to specify that I was only planning on using this for "Optional-but-Necessary" attachments such as AR-15 stocks (of which my projects only have three). Basically gun components that we're using attachments to portray. The attachments bug notwithstanding, I was planning on doing this as a quick workaround to Shift-F stripping off the AR-15 stocks after I re-enabled it in AFS v3.60RC HAM5. Thought this would be better than earlier discussions on adding a tag that controlled whether an attachment was removed by Shift-F, or that duplicate default attachment system that the now missing Cell/Monade was suggesting.


EDIT: I think all I managed to do was come up with a wish list of how item conversion (same system for both mergers and HAM 5 Item Transformation) should handle attachments under NAS. The term "Valid" simply means the attachment is on the base items attachments list. Please advise if I'm missing any scenarios: Merger/Item Transformation Attachment Handling Cases

[Updated on: Tue, 27 December 2011 22:05] by Moderator



Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295824] Tue, 27 December 2011 23:51 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Wow, I'm even more confused now that I've looked at that table...

From what I did understand though, if things were to be handled the way you describe there, I would have to have a dozen checks firing before even allowing a transformation to occur. This makes things even more complicated than they are now.

However, lets indeed try to figure out a working "standard", I.E. a system that would be simpler than the existing one, and still make sense, while in return imposing limits on modding. There are three primary options for this as I see it:

Option A:

A) Each IDA that can transform (hehehe another acronym we're all going to hate very soon) will ALWAYS be able to transform back to its original form. Thus if the gun has 2x integral optics which can be set to 4x, it can ALWAYS be transformed back to 2x. Making a one-way transformation is illegal.
B) If the weapon itself is also capable of transformations, it will always reset all its IDAs to their original state. Therefore, if we set the scope to 4x, then fold the weapon, it will revert to a 2x scope.
C) The weapon must always be able to hold ALL of its IDAs, regardless of how many different transformations you can do to it. Any transformed version of the gun which cannot hold all IDAs of the original gun is illegal.

In this way, the gun always has enough room for all its IDAs, so we don't need to erase or separate them at all while doing any transformations. This takes care of MOST of the possible scenarios.

However, it also means that the weapon returns to default state every time you transform it. Folding the stock returns the scope to 2x mode? Why? This would annoy players, who set their scopes to a certain mode during combat, then fold the weapon only to have their scope change undone.

Option B would be this:

A) All IDAs are completely untouchable - they cannot transform at all.
B) To change an IDA's function or mode, we need to transform the gun itself. The transformation deletes all IDAs and puts in new ones.
C) Any separable or inseparable attachment that is occupying a slot that should belong to an IDA is ejected to inventory upon transformation of the parent gun.

This is much simpler, and makes a lot of sense. But it means that the weapon needs to have many different versions of itself. In the above example, there are four versions: "2x Folded", "2x Unfolded", "4x Folded" and "4x Unfolded". Increase the number of versions exponentially for each integral attachment you have that should be able to transform, and each extra mode you want for any of these integral attachments.

The drawback is that this will easily inflate the number of items in items.XML (not to mention Item_Transformations.XML!). Therefore, it may not be a good idea to try this until we have a working templates XML, which will hold the parent item - while in Items.XML we only define the versions, i.e. how each version differs from the base (with one version not differing from the base at all).

So this version has no limit for modders, but does require them to do more work, and to inflate Items.XML. Therefore it would require a working templates system. I do hope to institute one in the near future, though I don't know how long it would take to make it operational - and it WILL mean a ton of work for modders until such time that the XML Editor can be taught how to read and edit templates.

And finally, Option C:

A) No default attachments. Option removed.
B) The weapon contains all bonuses from the attachments internally, and transformations to change these bonuses all result from transforming the gun itself.

This is similar to option B, but here we literally remove the concept of "integral" attachments completely. In other words, the 2x Mag Factor for example will come from the gun itself - with no scope installed in the scope slot.

This option takes slightly less work for the modder, but there still need to be lots of versions of the gun, with different bonuses for each version. Again, this means the gun has a lot of transformations available (thus lots of versions) but has no problem transforming back and forth as it pleases.



To be honest, I'm really not sure which option is the best. But I think that any option more complex than this (i.e. stipulating all sorts of extra rules or exceptions) will be utterly baffling. Heck, even the above is utterly baffling.

The main thing I've learned from this excruciating mental excercise (and I am refraining from posting the GIF from Scanners again even though that's exactly how I feel right now) is that there really is no way to handle this gracefully without giving something up. NAS opens up a lot of options, but it makes it very hard to make all these options work with one another. Where we made things more complex by allowing more attachments, we need to make it simpler by really defining to ourselves what an attachment IS and how we should treat it by the game...


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295825] Wed, 28 December 2011 00:01 Go to previous messageGo to next message
JMich

 
Messages:580
Registered:January 2011
Location: Greece
On an unrelated note, here is a HAM 5.x compatible XML Editor. I think (hope?) that all bugs are squashed, mostly thanks to wil and smeag. Feel free to use it, and send me a message if any bugs are found.
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295826] Wed, 28 December 2011 00:09 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
Shit JM, I forgot again...

For now I think I'll link to it in the top post though... I don't know when the next HAM 5 version is going to be released, and am up in the air with this transformations business ATM...


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295830] Wed, 28 December 2011 00:37 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Wil473

 
Messages:2815
Registered:September 2004
Location: Canada
Headrock
And finally, Option C:

A) No default attachments. Option removed.
B) The weapon contains all bonuses from the attachments internally, and transformations to change these bonuses all result from transforming the gun itself.

This is similar to option B, but here we literally remove the concept of "integral" attachments completely. In other words, the 2x Mag Factor for example will come from the gun itself - with no scope installed in the scope slot.

This option takes slightly less work for the modder, but there still need to be lots of versions of the gun, with different bonuses for each version. Again, this means the gun has a lot of transformations available (thus lots of versions) but has no problem transforming back and forth as it pleases.


This one would disallow weapons with built-in launchers.


Perhaps it would be better to leave it as is. The current system only crashes if we try to create an inseparable transforming attachment right? Perhaps just put a check in to prevent inseparable attachments from transforming to prevent the crash. The workaround of multiple guns/attachment combinations is workable, as long as nobody goes crazy with variable attachments.


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #295831] Wed, 28 December 2011 00:52 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
That is what option B is.


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #296053] Sat, 31 December 2011 21:28 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Action

 
Messages:11
Registered:February 2001
Not sure if this is a HAM bug or a AFS bug.

I'm using the latest version of HAM with the SCI from this thread and AFS v3.60RC2b-HAM5 Optimized 20111219.

Step 1) Merge ammo (.38 special or 5.56mm works for sure) into 500 round box using new HAM feature.

Step 2) Place ammo box in Ira's ARUC backpack.

Step 3) Open up the description for the ammo box and use the "split crate into inventory" transform.

Result: At least with low amounts of ammo the ammo box disappears and no magazines/speedloaders are created. Searching everywhere, the missing bullets can't be found, it looks like they've been deleted.
Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #296074] Sun, 01 January 2012 09:14 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Captain Colon

 
Messages:10
Registered:December 2011

Some gripes about the new CTH system...first let me say I DO like the intention of it which, if I'm not mistaken, is to try and make firefights a more realistic and more intense by increasing the value of suppressive fire (especially at longer ranges when you might not have enough APs for a reliable aimed shot but could at least get off a short burst in the general direction) and I will say it does succeed very well in this regard. However, in my playing so far I've found that SMGs and pistols are damn near useless except in EXTREME close quarters (within 5-7 tiles). My IMP merc with 85DEX, 85WIS and 85MAR and the Sniper trait can spend five clicks to aim an SMG and still miss around 50-75% of the time unless I'm within that 5-7 tile range. And that's if I'm kneeling...if I'm standing, it's pretty much a guaranteed miss no matter what I do. Meanwhile, my admin enemies (playing on experienced, they shouldn't be too tough) are firing what appear to be unaimed/partially aimed shots (based on the fact that they can fire 2-3 per turn) and while they miss most of the time, every turn or two they get a lucky hit and my merc goes to the ground. I have Trevor using a shotgun with slugs and he can't hit anything reliably unless he's within 5-7 tiles of the enemy, crouching or prone, spending EVERY AP on aiming (it's like 8 clicks) AND has the bonus from shooting at that target previously.

Now to be fair, it isn't too unrealistic to have that kind of accuracy on a moving target with an SMG at 50-70 meters (from what I've read it seems to be 1 tile = 10 meters...correct me if I'm wrong). However, in the game I consider 5 tiles to be "pretty damn close" just because of how everything's rendered and scaled...it takes very little AP to close that distance moving, only a couple steps; so why am I constantly missing the guy who's only a few paces away?

TL;DR is I think everyone misses aimed shots a bit too much (CtH bonus per click for aiming too low) with the CtH changes and CtH drops off far too quickly with range...what if the CtH system was changed so that range to target affected CtH non-linearly? That way the curve could be tweaked to find a good balance to make short-range, low-AP snap shots more likely to hit without making it too easy to snipe targets at long range with few APs spent aiming.

Also, if anyone could point me to a link on how the CtH system currently works (like something that explains exactly how CtH is calculated from start to finish) I could probably give much more detailed and accurate feedback. Also sorry if this post reads poorly or doesn't make any sense...Happy New Year? Wink

*EDIT* Also feel like weapon conditions need some tweaking...it's not that they break too fast; they just lose accuracy and start jamming too early. I just started up a game and Spider had her gun jam on the first shot. FIRST SHOT OF THE GAME! I don't know if the game uses a numerical value for condition or just good/fair/poor, but either way, I think her Viking at 78% should be considered in good condition rather than fair especially if the game is using a good/fair/poor metric for likelihood of a jam.

[Updated on: Sun, 01 January 2012 09:24] by Moderator

Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #296076] Sun, 01 January 2012 11:47 Go to previous messageGo to next message
DepressivesBrot

 
Messages:3749
Registered:July 2009
The zeroth point you need to understand about NCTH is this: There is no CTH.

Now, in no particular order:
  • NCTH wants you to spend more bullets ... way more. Headrock told me he considers something like 20 rounds per dead enemy desirable - so try full auto.
  • An SMG is not a sniper rifle, your sniper trait is useless in this situation.
  • Shotguns were never too useful, consider using buckshot though as every pellet gives full suppression (thus one shell effectively replaces a 9rd burst)
  • Standard 1.13 data is horribly broken, both stat-wise and in the ancient invade-a-country-with-pistols item progression.
  • A gun jamming on the first shot at 78% just means the RNG doesn't like you.
  • Currently, there's no complete and up-to-date explanation of the NCTH system available.
Happy new year to all of you.


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #296079] Sun, 01 January 2012 15:29 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Headrock

 
Messages:1795
Registered:March 2006
Location: Jerusalem
I'll add some more and reply while I'm at it.

Quote:
from what I've read it seems to be 1 tile = 10 meters...correct me if I'm wrong


Actually Sirtech designed it so that 1 tile = however much is required to make the game playable. They didn't make a working weapons simulator. As such, most weapons can appear to have more (or less) effective range than they would in real life. Balancing the system is also very difficult, though Wil473 is trying to rebalance the original NCTH values to make it work a little better within the confines of the game.

Quote:
My IMP merc with 85DEX, 85WIS and 85MAR and the Sniper trait can spend five clicks to aim an SMG and still miss around 50-75% of the time unless I'm within that 5-7 tile range.


As DepressivesBrot pointed out, the Sniper traits will not help with a small weapon (unless you're using the old traits system, though I'm not 100% sure what happens then). And yeah, initially SMGs are not very effective beyond basic range, but their primary advantage is a (rather) stable autofire when crouched, especially with larger SMGs like the Colt 9mm which have low enough recoil that a strong merc can stabilize them. They should be your primary suppressive weapons during the early game, firing more rounds to get the odd hit or two, and fast enough to be used if the enemy gets in close. Mercs with pistols and MPs should try to get much closer. When scopes and foregrips become available, the SMG can become significantly more dangerous at up to 14 or even 20 tiles, of course.

Again, as DepressivesBrot pointed out (he's my unofficial pointing-out-things guy Smile ) there are problems with the item progression system, which was balanced for the old CTH system and unfortunately unchanged with the introduction of NCTH. OCTH prefers longer-ranged weapons in almost every circumstance, so almost all the pistols are introduced by Progress 40, while Sniper Rifles appear only after Progress 60. In NCTH this makes little sense, because it relies more on variety of weapons, with each weapon category having its own pros and cons. Again, Wil473 is currently working on changing the Coolness levels, but the basic 1.13 download still has all the pistols appear early and all the long rifles appear late.

Quote:
I have Trevor using a shotgun with slugs and he can't hit anything reliably unless he's within 5-7 tiles of the enemy


Shotguns are significantly better with buckshot ammo in NCTH, especially when suppression values are pushed up (and they should be - the default value of 75 is very low and may cause suppression to not work at all beyond a certain progress level). With slugs, you'll actually need scopes to make your shotgun deadly at a greater range. And it is actually quite deadly thanks to the high damage output -- though by the time you get scopes you also usually get .50 rifles like the Beowulf which can produce better results, thus rendering the slugs less useful. This is another effect of the old weapon progression messing up NCTH. In any case, the shotgun is a great close-combat weapon, just stick to buckshot if you can for now.

Quote:
so why am I constantly missing the guy who's only a few paces away?


Once again, since 1 tile DOES NOT EQUAL 10 meters, the perception of distances is flawed. Your mercs can't spot anyone more then 25-or-so tiles away, which is less than the length of some buildings (the Cambria Hospital is at least 70 tiles across, I think. Weapon ranges in the game are mainly built with comparison to sight-range, again to make the game workable and playable. There's no way to work around that. And since NCTH employs actual physics and realistic shooting effects rather than arbitrary numbers, the result is that 5 tiles of distance is actually a lot. If you assume that 1 tile is 10 meters, then 5 tiles is 50 meters, which is a long range for a pistol. If you assume that 1 tile is ~2 meters (based on the size of the visible objects in the game) then 5 tiles is 10 meters, and you should hit with every shot... It's a problem, which hopefully will be solved some day, but not right now. If you're upset about people being able to close the range very quickly, you could try upping the AP costs to move. Of course, this will make battles much longer.

Quote:
CtH drops off far too quickly with range...


Scopes are extremely important for long-range shots. Until you get them, all ranged combat will be significantly more difficult.

Quote:
what if the CtH system was changed so that range to target affected CtH non-linearly?


Snap-shots are not supposed to get much of a chance to hit the target. NCTH assumes that an aimed shot is practically required in order to get a realistic chance to hit the enemy at any real distance - unless the weapon is very easy to handle and the target is very close. It assumes that an unaimed shot is exactly that - unaimed. I.E. the gun is fired with a "flinch" reaction rather than with any real purpose. Reserve snapshots for very close engagements, esp. with a fast small weapon (pistol/MP). Alternately, long autofiring weapons (like LMGs) can be aimed while firing (rather than before firing) by leading the shots into the target, meaning that aiming beforehand is less relevant for such weapons, though it does still help in most cases.

Quote:
Also, if anyone could point me to a link on how the CtH system currently works (like something that explains exactly how CtH is calculated from start to finish)


I've been working on this for a while, intermittently, though it will take a while more before I'm done. The system is not really complicated (I designed it to be simple), but explaining it is difficult because I want to show how things work in the game, which means adding lot of pictures. So it will take time.

Quote:
Also feel like weapon conditions need some tweaking...it's not that they break too fast;


Download HAM 5. It allows reducing the speed of deterioration by any factor you want. HAM 5 also solves several problems with NCTH - though it WILL reduce hit probability even further. You're expected to fire more bullets, and it is highly recommended that you increase suppression values significantly beyond the default values.


Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #296080] Sun, 01 January 2012 17:03 Go to previous messageGo to next message
Captain Colon

 
Messages:10
Registered:December 2011

According to the tooltip the sniper trait gives an aiming bonus for everything except pistols, so there should still be a pretty significant bonus and a resulting high CtH on a well-aimed shot with any non-pistol weapon. Anyway, I think I've got the values set to where they feel good to me.

http://pastebin.com/yrJ00YiN <-- CTHConstants I'm using

Not too many changes:
  • NORMAL_SHOOTING_DISTANCE increased to 100 from 70
  • DEGREES_MAXIMUM_APERTURE decreased to 10 from 15
  • RANGE_COEFFICIENT decreased to 1.0 from 1.1
  • VERTICAL_BIAS decreased to 0.25 from 0.5
  • BASE_MARKS increased to 2.0 from 1.0
  • BASE_DEX increased to 1.5 from 1.0
  • AIM_CROUCHING_STANCE decreased to 1.0 from 1.25
  • AIM_PRONE_STANCE decreased to 0.75 from 1.0
  • NORMAL_RECOIL_DISTANCE increased to 100 from 70

So far it's feeling like a pretty happy medium between Headrock's half a magazine to kill someone next to you and vanilla's laser death beams from across the map. I've noticed with these settings that when firing long auto bursts the first few shots will miss, then a couple hits, then misses...it seems to simulate raking a target with autofire very well (before these settings I found that auto bursts tended to either have one bullet hit, every bullet hit, or no bullets hit). I increased the values of marksmanship and dexterity (making each point more valuable) because frankly I could never really tell the difference between, say, an 85MAR merc and a 60MAR merc. Now I actually feel like I'm getting some CtH rewards in exchange for gutting an IMP merc's ability to do anything else. I also wanted to simulate the benefit of being able to use your knee for support while aiming from a crouched/kneeling position, so I put a fairly decent gap between how useful aiming is while standing vs how useful it is while crouching or prone...if you're crouched or prone behind cover you have more incentive to use aimed single shots or short aimed bursts, but on the move you're better off just spraying and praying.

*EDIT* Looks like Headrock replied while I was posting this...I am currently using HAM 5.5.1 with the tweaks I mentioned above and loving it. Many thanks to you and everyone else who continue to push new fun stuff Smile

[Updated on: Sun, 01 January 2012 17:12] by Moderator

Re: HAM 5 Alpha - You know it!![message #296082] Sun, 01 January 2012 18:45 Go to previous messageGo to previous message
elenhil

 
Messages:68
Registered:June 2008
Headrock
there are problems with the item progression system, which was balanced for the old CTH system and unfortunately unchanged with the introduction of NCTH. OCTH prefers longer-ranged weapons in almost every circumstance, so almost all the pistols are introduced by Progress 40, while Sniper Rifles appear only after Progress 60. In NCTH this makes little sense, because it relies more on variety of weapons, with each weapon category having its own pros and cons. Again, Wil473 is currently working on changing the Coolness levels

Have you seen MAM? It modifies enemy gun choices, too. Pretty good, IMHO.
Previous Topic: Depleted Uranium Ammo & AET ammo
Next Topic: 1.13 Stock Data Overhaul
Goto Forum:
  


Current Time: Sun Aug 20 22:11:22 EEST 2017

Total time taken to generate the page: 0.01880 seconds