Zybertryx

Ah, that explains it, as my base is a somewhat butchered LW 1.08 your delicious refactoring of the key tutorial code above explains my issue perfectly. :( I wonder if I could attempt to reinclude the tutorial hex by removing the number of bytes required from something superfluous elsewhere. . . Would be quite the exercise ;)

Greetings esteemed ones, I've used a cunning system to modify the base movement values of my XCOM soldiers (it's made up for in armor) to preserve the playability of the tactical tutorial game (as the tactical tutorial mission explicitly assumes a movement of '12') but where I'm having issues is that after successfully completing the tactical tutorial, the first tutorial driven exercise on the geoscape side is to go to the Barracks to promote your first solider (the sole survivor of the tactical tut). Because I've altered the XP thresholds per level I thought that if I kept the threshold for the first rank "Squaddie" as Vanilla ('90') that I'd be able to get through this part of the early tutorial period. But surprisingly to me, doing this still didn't result in a qualified operative: No one has enough experience to 'level up' and so the scripted and hand-holdy 'promote your first squad member' sequence is unaccomplishable; the game ends here. Though it might seem kinda trivial, and I admit, next to everything I've incorporated in my own mod package, it is, but as my wish-list is ever shrinking this is one of the things I'd like not to break. The tut, though often irritating provides some narrative depth that is lost on non-tut beginnings. Assuming this problem gets sorted out, the next question I'd have rendered would have been, "How can I make it so that when playing tutorial games the Build Facilities ant-farm is not 'locked' until the 'tutorial period' is over?" Essentially I want to make the tutorial the defintive game start option for all difficulties for all new campaigns (by 'unsucking' its sucky elements to retain its narrative pulse). First things first though, does anyone have any thoughts as to why I'm unable to promote a soldier after successfully completing the tactical tutorial? It's not that the UI is unresponsive or anything like that btw, it's that no one (including the sole survivor who I can identify) is qualified to 'rank up'. The tutorial tool tip when browsing the solider pool reads "Select " "", if that helps. My DGC rank profile looks like this: ; Soldier XP Levels (Rookie, Squaddie, Corporal, Sergeant, Lieutenant, Captain, Major, Colonel) m_iSoldierXPLevels=0 m_iSoldierXPLevels=90;90 m_iSoldierXPLevels=300;300 m_iSoldierXPLevels=600;510 m_iSoldierXPLevels=1000;745 m_iSoldierXPLevels=1500;1100 m_iSoldierXPLevels=2100;1560 m_iSoldierXPLevels=2800;2150 There is something else that might influence this in case the code is not using the 'normal' XP-for-kills-system but rather - for this tut sequence - checking for the 'sole survivor' of the previous tactical battle. I suspect this because there are always two survivors in my tutorial tactical game now (is that normal?). Perhaps that's the reason? (and if it's not normal, I have no idea why she survives - as everyone has less health in my mod, plasma does more damage and nothing in the scripted turn sequence appears to be missing :blink: ).

I think it's an issue of ignorance, a peculiar obstacle yet to be disclosed, or a lack of competence among those few actively modding XCOM currently. Those who are actively modding XCOM are truly talented code-crunchers whose work has improved this game immensely, but that seems to be their forte, so map manipulations, new graphic assets etc may just be outside their area of expertise. That this game uses Unreal Engine 3 though would mean that comparisons to the method of model exporting/exporting, animating, and so on, including the necessary third party programs required would, I imagine, be worlds apart from, say Civilization V. That said, because it's such a 'glossy' and popular engine, I'm sure there is a lot of documentation and third party support for doing so. You couldn't exactly call UE3 'nichey'. Of course, there may be a good reason related to the nuances of how Firaxis compiled the relevant details on the graphics side of things that I'm not aware of that explains the lack of any mods on that front here thus far. I know that texture swapping in XCOM can be done via "Texmod" but that the process is a little convoluted (and might need to be initiated every time the game is launched). Perhaps it's simply 'early days', or perhaps someone much more savvy than myself will let us both know exactly what the obstacles are in this regard. Z

Hmm, if Red Fog doesn't discriminate between 'base HP' and extra HP added by armor then in the vanilla incarnation those with better armor (and thus more HP) would have a higher capacity for being crippled than those without. Which is. . . yeah. . . stupid. Would be really sweet if it did discriminate. Will would be another attribute I would like to see some discrimination about. I've lowered Will for XCOM pretty severely but I've added a will boost to most advanced equipment to simulate the effect in confidence shiny new toys has on your soliders. The problem is that I'd like the base Will to govern psi potential, resistance against psi attacks (and aggressive psi use too) but for total Will (Base + Item buffs) to govern the panic mechanism alone.

Personally I've just renamed all the ranks as conventional military titles just weren't doing it for me. XCOM is a black project covert op outfit made up of the most highly trained and experienced conventional military personel from around the world in an 'invite only' manner, right? So I have no loyalty to any real-world rank hirearchy. So now their ranks reflect that. You can change all instances of the ranks in the UI via the .int files in your my documents\my games\xcom\xcomgame\localisation\int folder. (I think that if you don't have the DLC, then those files (the .ints) mirrored in the install directory might take precedence and so would need to be edited there instead)

Ah, yeah 1.9 is monster and incompatible. Good call. @ Amineri However (hehe), and this may surprise you, if you use the new Toolboks to edit LW 1.8 perk trees (or even Vanilla) you can actually get up to a 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 - 3 layout even without the Enhanced Perk Trees mod but in doing so you will experience a UI format issue (a cosmetic only problem) in that your ingame perk tree will display a right-hand bias and any line with only a single perk will display a 'phantom' slot. Functionally it will be fine though. For those reading, the issue was raised (and resolved) on page 12 of this thread: http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/981018-ui-mod-bigger-perk-tree/page-12 That said, for non-LW 1.9 mods (and Vanilla) there is really is no good reason to not use the Enhanced Perk Trees mod (and Bertilsson's excellent webtool to generate your own custom class specific hirearchies). Context: I think there's a lot of users who loved Toolboks but stopped using it because it was incompatible with Merciless 1.3 because Toolboks (1.2) lacked support for more than two perks per line (and basically broke their trees). But are now using Toolboks 1.3.x to 'drag-n-drop' their own perks per class - taking advantage of the new built in 'up-to-three' support - yet have not installed the stand alone Enhanced Perk Trees mod and are experiencing the odd UI formatting. I assume this because I was one of them. The solution to the cosmetic issue is to use the Enhanced Perk Trees mod and the solution to using Bertilsson's webtool in any case is to use the Enhanced Perk Trees mod. I believe Bertilsson has now included the EPT mod in the autogenerated text that his Perk Tree Customiser webtool generates.

Yes it is. Speaking without authority but with lots of experience with using three perks (expanded perk trees mod - now included when applying the custom perk tree via Toolboks from the webtool you linked) and LW 1.08. The mods are moddable. =)

Oh! My load times are insane! And seem to be creeping ever longer. Especially the bink clip of the back end of the Skyranger when going from tactical to strategy - I also get audio breaks there, driving me nuts (takes like 40+ seconds which in gamerland is eternity). I was about ready to reformat thinking my PC was a bit ill. So, this is likely because I used LW 1.08 uninstaller way back when, then after figuring out which files it altered and overwriting them manual style while using Toolboks to 'hack*' the exe - the skip hash thingy tick box - I've been suffering from that initial uninstaller issue ever since? I still use modpatcher to update my DGC changes pretty much daily (I'm rebalancing the economy atm). I should clean slate via the Steam method and throw my work back in manually to see if that resolves it. * Disclaimer: My lexicon is fundamentally non-technical. That's gamer speak for "that-thing-that-the-old-school-used-to-have-to-XSHAPE-but-now-Toolboks-auto-does-it-for-you-kinda-thing"

I'm still running with both "AnyClass" and "Heavy" properties without issue and everything is working as intended (Assault Rifles are now less spammable with suppression having taken on the ammo capacity characteristics of Vanilla heavy weapons and they are equippable by the every class including the Heavy). Simply using AnyClass on Assault Rifles (and Laser/Plasma equivs), for a reason I don't understand, made them available to all classes except the Heavy, but by adding the 'Heavy' property to the weapon I managed to hit-two-birds-with-one-stone by toning down my buffed Assault Rifles and making them forever optional for any class. Which is fantastic when kicked in the teeth by Vanilla's irritating random Class Assignment mechanic. So I no longer rage when due to that mechanic (and lots of guys in the infirmary) my active squad members consist of Sniper, Sniper, Sniper, Sniper, Heavy, Heavy, Noob. =) The coolest part is that a lot of Vanilla perks are in fact weapon locked so that my Assault Rifle wielding Snipers can't use Headshot or Disabling Shot which is exactly what I was concerned about (I didn't want them to outperform say, Supports, when using Assault Rifles). So, now although everyone can use Assaults, each class has a good reason to stick to their intended weapon specialty when the circumstances (or diversity of specialists) are favorable. I'd kinda like "Flush" and "Bullet Swarm" to be locked to specific weapons (Heavy Weapons only . . though now my Assault Rifles are technically "Heavy Weapons" too so that would defeat the intention. . . gah) but that's really just picking a scab that doesn't need to be picked. Another thing that's really very sweet is that the mesh overlay for the XCOM soldiers is dependant on the weapon equipped. This is a really cool cosmetic touch that if wasn't a side effect of this change would be desirable. I'm sure you all know this, I'm just a little chuffed. :D That would be great and could have some interesting applications.

Just to add to the above, if you maintain the exact progression of your current perk hierarchy you'll have no issues whatsoever. So, in your case, if you just want to get rid of the 'phantom' slot and centre the perks you have (an essentially cosmetic fix - as I needed) then just be sure you keep the perks the same as they are currently after applying the Enhanced Perk Mod and you'll have no dramas with contemporary saves.

Using Bertilsson's Tool to generate a Toolboks friendly Perk Tree spread actually broke my game (crash on launch). To fix it I had to roll back to my back up, then install the Enhanced Perk Tree mod (via Toolboks) and then apply the same generated Perk spread once more. After comparing the text, the EPT mod modifies XComGame, XcomStrategyGame and Command1 .upks but the tool only generates entries for XComGame.upk. So, for anyone who suffers from the same issue as blacklimoband or myself, what you should do is download the Enhanced Perk Trees mod here: http://xcom.nexusmods.com/mods/104/?tab=2&navtag=%2Fajax%2Fmodfiles%2F%3Fid%3D104&pUp=1 Installation is painless with Toolboks: INSTALLATION: 1) Place all files (from the Enhanced Perk Tree mod and your own cut/paste created Custom Perk Tree Mod file from Bertilsson's webtool) into the ToolBoks/Custom Mods/ folder 2) Start ToolBoks and select the 'Custom Mods' tab 3) Click 'Load Custom Mod' 4) Select the 'Perk Tree Custom Mod' file 'Perk Tree Custom Mod (Installer)' will install the new perk tree UI (Choose this one) 'Perk Tree Custom Mod (Un-Installer)' will revert the perk tree back to the default values 5) Click 'Install Custom Mod' 6) The process will take a few seconds to complete 7) Install complete! 8] Click 'Load Custom Mod' (again) 9) Select the 'perk tree custom file' you created (and named) via Bertilsson's webtool 10) Click 'Install Custom Mod' 11) Rejoice!

Amazing work, and thanks so much for the link to Bertilsson's Toolboks Custom Mod File Generator.

I'm having the same issue, I installed the latest Toolboks when I noticed an update but didn't apply the stand alone Expanded Perk Trees modlet (I think this is why). Three perks per rank works however with no problems, although the UI formatting is clearly right biased (and any rank with a only a single perk displays a 'phantom' slot.) http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b39/Zybortrix/2013-06-26_00002.jpg Screenie ^

Aye, both Merciless and Long War have certainly grown new limbs. I'm still dabbling with the less novel modlets, aiming for a magical balance of the (now) traditional and eclectic features. Part of that is my burning desire to actually understand what's here currently, and, being utterly illiterate with absolutely no experience in coding previously, that's quite an obstacle. Baby steps, though I'm soaking it up like a sponge. Hmm. Interesting, Flush as built in for Heavy Weapons. . . which are only equipable by a Heavy. . . freeing a perk slot for the Heavy. . . interesting option. As for passive perks and the potential for UPK edits thereby, I noticed that "Executioner" works with pistols in Vanilla (or LW 1.08) and now too with my Assault Rifle wielding Snipers. Would it be a simple matter to get that 'married' to the Sniper Rifle only or would that require a rewrite and some byte hijacks (well beyond me)?

Wouldn't the easiest way to make the Rocket Launcher a Support Class Only weapon without any graphical anomalies or glitches be done by renaming and retheming the Heavy Class as the Support Class and then changing the LMG (and Laser/Plasma equivs) so that it's usable by the Support Class (which is now the new "Heavy") and not by the Heavy Class (which is now the new "Support")? I'm talking about 50% of this being accomplished through in-game description (int files) - literally rename "Heavy" to "Support" and "Support" to "Heavy". So, unless there's something crucial I'm overlooking, which is quite possible, you'd only need to switch the Class allowance of the LMGs (etc) so that they're usable by (Vanilla) Supports (which, if you're following, are now "Heavies"). Then simply switch the HP, Aim and Will per rank values of the Heavy for those of the Support in the DGC.ini to preserve their progression there. As perk modification is completely painless thanks to ToolBoks, this would complete the process. This is how I'd go about it assuming an otherwise Vanilla system of 4 fixed Classes, anyhoo. I just gave the Assault Rifle the "AnyClass" property (replacing "Rifle") and my Snipers (and of course, Supports, Rookies and Assaults who always could anyway) could equip them but my Heavies could not. So I also gave Assault Rifles the property "Heavy" (replacing "None") and now every class can equip Assault Rifles. However, due to native code stickiness, I assume this would mean that from hereafter, without some surgery anyway, that Assault Rifles will suffer from less ammo capacity (3 shots from a full clip or 1 burst of suppression)? This actually might be exactly what my mod needs to make rookie suppression less spammable and "Ammo Conservation" both more desirable and less OP. . . this begs the question though; would Snipers who use Assault Rifles be able to use "Headshot", "Disabling Shot", "Executioner" and the other intuitively weapon-specific perks? And if so *looks to Amneri* could you lock certain perks to certain weapons (as I know you've unlocked a couple)? [Edit] Wow, this is epic. Seems that "Headshot" and "Disabling Shot" are already locked to Sniper Rifles! This is awesome! However, in case there's a perk I think should be locked to a specific weapon and isn't (like say, Flush for the LMG, Heavy Laser and Heavy Plasma) are you able to make it so?

Hey guys, I'm working on an overhaul based on Long War 1.08 for personal use and there's not much that remains un. . .molested** (I left Long War's interception mini game stats/dynamics alone - I like them a lot and I have no clue as to what's what there :D) but after reworking the getpossiblealiens tables I've realised that what I'd also like to do is find out how to tweak the mission difficulty probabilities so that they too 'escalate' as the game progresses. What I mean is that in the first month I'd like most missions to be "Easy" with a small chance of "Standard" difficulty missions also being possible. Month 2/3 would have a greater weighting of the "Standard" missions and month 4-6 would introduce "Hard" to the possibilities, and so on, up to "Extreme." I'm not sure if it's because I always use the SW option "High Stakes" but what happens currently is that regardless of the month abduction missions can be wildly varied, from "Easy" to "Hard" with no clear discernible trend. I ask because my tactical game is really brutal and unforgiving while using a timescale which takes its inspiration from Long War. . . A string of "Hard" missions in a single month can utterly cripple my soldier pool (if any survive at all, it's a month in the infirmary). I'd also like to make Ironman or Total Loss games actually playable at some point. I know how to tweak the number of pods and aliens present per threshold (and have done so) but I really like that "Hard" actually is Hard, so I just want more control over when in the campaign timeframe "Hard" missions (etc) become typical. Also, are Terror missions the only "Extreme" rated missions which use the tables concerning the number of pods and aliens per threshold in XGStrategyAI.DetermineAbductionSquad? So, basically, is "Mission Difficulty 3" exclusively used for Terror missions here? Thanks. -------------- **Major props to JohnnyLump for cramming so many must-have modlets and tweaks into Long War.

Yeah, that would be really cool. Fewer pods but larger and themed. This might actually have as a side-effect some of the gameplay I was hoping to encourage too. With less pods, there'd be less active trigger-spawns, so potentially more movement around the maps before contact.

I'm curious about the progress made on this front. Is it possible to give aliens new perks that the AI will actually use? And if so, is it possible to give Cryssalids perma Run N Gun so that they're not completely gimped and immersion breaking anymore? I'd like to be scared. Also, I'd love Terror Missions to only spawn Cryssalids. Aliens™ style missions would be really cool. [EDIT] Bah, does Long War 1.8 include Cryssies with Run N Claw already? It's hard to tell if it's simply due to their high imobility (ie: a long distance 'blue move') or if they do indeed possess this perk; Long War Terror Missions are great. [EDIT 2] Further testing indicates that both the Cryssies and the Zombies don't possess it. I would LOVE to give it to them.

This looks very interesting. I often wonder why the urge to radicalise the entire game - sometimes less is more. :smile: To my mind a pod count of even four is a 33% increase in difficulty alone. You're talking about nine! I'd love to see pods of up-to-four (randomised but far more likely on the larger UFO's and Terror Missions). That alone would go a long way in creating a few more cringe moments - especially when ganged by multiple pods. Also, something that's been bothering me for a long time are the spawn points on certain maps - lots of maps. For me the best part of the game is the steady positioning into the fog of war looking for the hated enemy. What deflates me often are those maps where you spawn in and the first move you make reveals the first pod with the second and third pods being only another move away. So 90% of the entire fight is conducted in sight range of the skyranger - and this happens on some of those larger more urban maps too resulting in much of the map, including some nice and complex buildings as well as the roof top battlespace, remaining constantly neglected. That's a real shame. Can you guys influence which spawns points are active on a map? Could you disable the spawn point closest to the skyranger on certain maps? I was thinking that because the number of spawn points is fixed, and because I'm suggesting that at least on some maps we (that means you :biggrin:) disable the initial spawn point, that an increased pod size for the other spawn points - those deeper into the map - would result in the same number of aliens on the field, in larger groups (even if only of four) upping the difficulty (at least modestly) while preserving balance and making each map much more dynamic and less routine. Another thing that would be truly refreshing would be multiple skyranger entry points (xcom spawn points) on all the maps. I assume that would require a dedicated map edtor though. Anyway, thoughts on this pod idea? And is it actually doable?

Ha, I just realised I've been calling it the "OST" in every instance. . . even with my inner voice :blink: Definately grabbing the new EU Explorer. (!!) Cheers.

Thanks Amineri! This I found in XComStrategyGame.upk >> XGTechTree (only): function int OTSRank() { return 3; } Right Click Show Buffer + Notepad + vertigo from typing hex (seriously, no copy in UE Explorer**?) + HxD = Success! \o/ *Bows to the Master* Thanks man, that was it, I might make it 2c 02 though just so it feels like an achievement, haha. ** I have v1.0.

In Vanilla in normal difficulty you start with the OST ready built at the top left corner of the base grid. I'm not really looking to have it pre built I'd simply like to have it already available for construction in the list (I think Merciless does this) when playing Classic. I'm basically splicing Mercliess' tactical game into Long War's geoscape base and its. . . well. . . punishing :biggrin:. I think the addition of the OST into Long War at the start is a good idea as it will provide different early game strategies given the limited funds; SHIV or Interceptors or Satellite or OST. I've looked through the forum here but haven't been able to find the requisite change. Alternatively could someone tell me how to lower the rank required to unlock it 'legitimately'? Cheers.

Sounds like this was written for me! I've been playing an awful lot of both Merciless and Long War since I completed the Vanilla game on a DGC modded Classic and I'm blown away how enriched you guys have made the tactical side - it's amazing -I can't go back to Vanilla after that, but I'm a bit lackluster on the geoscape side (regarding both mods mentioned). Vanilla feels (and is really) far too 'on rails' as far as the geoscape side is concerned but for me personally the approach you've taken in the face of that has thrown the baby out with the bath water. Basically, among many other things, I want to retain Vanilla's satellite focused funding system rebalance it around Marathon mode but increase the rate of abductions and UFO's - though only modestly while upping the difficulty considerably. In my humble opinion, this is the best place to feature your modlets in a 'To enable/make happen/change this, open up this file, with this program, find this, and replace it with this' fashion. Much like the notes in the Warspace Source download. Very consise and aimed at the end user. This place is a Mecca for hopelessly addicted binge gamers like myself but it's not at all easy to find what you're looking for. Partly because it's all over the place and buried within other topics and partly because what is gleanable to the keen noob is obselete due to patching or something else. The wiki which I believe you directly contribute to is a fine resource for people with some background in code but again it's completely alien to the hungry noob. I'm dying to get more information about how I can implement the features I most enjoy from the truly great overhaul mods into 'my own' Vanilla base as some of the key features of said mods just don't do it for me. If I were you though I'd definately bundle them into a txt file - or a series of txt files and upload it/them both here and to the Nexus proper. I can think of no reason to not do this. I'd love to splice key advances in both Long War and Merciless into a largely vanilla style geospace game. Most explicitly, however, Could you lay out how I can implement the Damage Reduction, Regeneration and Timed Buffs based on hijacking the easy and normal settings in the DGC.ini into a Vanilla installation? Words cannot express how cool this is. I've been tweaking the hell out of the DGC with this enabled - I love what you've done with Outsiders! I was doing the same thing with Vanilla, but a simple 10 HP is nothing compared to damage soak and regeneration. When I encountered two Outsiders on the first medium UFO I downed I was awed. It was really tense, reminded me of my first play through all over again. Also, I have to mention it because my own attempts have been utterly futile - the damage roulette style variable damage rate of Long War is fantastic. I would also love to get the hex edit for that, both the application of it to explosives but as much so the weighting of the damage dealt. A four (4) damage Assault Rifle on Long War typically does between 4 and 6 damage before criticals - not 3 and 4 like Vanilla (with SW Damage Roulette enabled). I thought I'd found it here earlier but it appears that the code you've used in Long War differs from a 'Randomised Explosives' hex line I pilfered from a recent thread which, although mimicks its behaviour (ie: it applies to explosives and all other weapons without enabling SW DR), results in 4 damage weaponry doing an awful lot of 3's. Long War's heavy damage bias is very cool. I have plently of other requests but if you could please include the hex changes for the ones I mentioned above with the 8 you're happy to release (or better still, here in response :biggrin: ) I'd be stoked. Sorry for the wall of text here, I'm just really keen, clueless and consumed with exactly what it is you're offering: Mod Modularity. Yes please.