SW_COVER_INCREASE, any successful use?

[DaGawdfadda]

@Crashdown1

 

I think you're confusing my idea with someone elses. I'm talking about the low/high cover defense bonuses that affects aim. In my mind high cover should make you essentially unhittable(especially if you are hunkering down). So if you and the enemy are both in high cover you can either exchange low % shots turn after turn hoping you connect on a 10-15% shot or you flank. I just double checked and the cover defense bonus does not apply to flanked units (I had one soldier flanking and his aim did not have a minus penalty to aim from cover, and another soldier aiming through the cover and he had the -20 for low cover).

 

My question is is 80% aim penalty for high cover too high? This will nerf snipers but they are way too powerful and make assault abilites like flush useless since they can hit just about anything regardless of cover. To compensate the bonus for higher ground might need to be upped. I'm putting this out there to other folks who are bothered by the cover system for input? Ideally the tools being worked on can be made and folks can mod whatever they want for cover bonuses and test out different values untill you get something more reasonable.

[Anbar]

Thanks Daemonjax! You, dreadylein and the rest are awesome. Its a shame Firaxis hasnt provided any tools or made the game engine/etc less convaluted.

 

Any thoughts on if my idea would screw up the balance of the game?

 

It would definitely make things easier, that's for sure. If you wanted to keep it semi balanced, at 100 percent critically wounded chance I'd reduce the time they are wounded to 1 turn (depending on whether that counts the turn they are wounded on, as a turn. If so, then 2).

 

Maybe even just keep it as one anyway.

 

 

last critically wounded i had went

3:

2:

Dead

 

so 1 would, i assume, mean "revive this turn or deader"

[Caiman]

Thanks Daemonjax! You, dreadylein and the rest are awesome. Its a shame Firaxis hasnt provided any tools or made the game engine/etc less convaluted.

 

Quoted for truth. You guys are ace! :thumbsup:

[Crashdown1]

@Crashdown1

 

I think you're confusing my idea with someone elses. I'm talking about the low/high cover defense bonuses that affects aim. In my mind high cover should make you essentially unhittable(especially if you are hunkering down). So if you and the enemy are both in high cover you can either exchange low % shots turn after turn hoping you connect on a 10-15% shot or you flank. I just double checked and the cover defense bonus does not apply to flanked units (I had one soldier flanking and his aim did not have a minus penalty to aim from cover, and another soldier aiming through the cover and he had the -20 for low cover).

 

My question is is 80% aim penalty for high cover too high? This will nerf snipers but they are way too powerful and make assault abilites like flush useless since they can hit just about anything regardless of cover. To compensate the bonus for higher ground might need to be upped. I'm putting this out there to other folks who are bothered by the cover system for input? Ideally the tools being worked on can be made and folks can mod whatever they want for cover bonuses and test out different values untill you get something more reasonable.

 

Ah, my bad, sorry.

 

80 percent gets into opinion territory. Some people won't like, some people will. Someone once told me when discussing this game that the biggest balance mods are going to affect cover, the moment we can actually touch them. Personally, I was thinking of doing the same thing. I want cover to absolutely be vital, and destroying it to be the same. I want flush to matter, and I want things like the assault class to have their purpose. Flanking should be majorly important.

 

I don't think 80 percent would ever get into breaking it territory, as the enemies get the same bonus. Just don't expect everyone to love it.

Edited October 20, 2012 by Crashdown1

[Daemonjax]

UPDATE: It appears the game doesn't use these constant after all. But, maybe someone else will figure it out!

 

So, yeah, assuming these constants are actually used in the game, here's how to mod low/high cover bonuses step by step:

 

1) uncompress XComGame.upk because this file has the tactical game elements

2) unpack it

3) load up the uncompressed XComGame.upk file with UE Explorer

4) navigate to XGTacticalGameCoreNativeBase

5) notice the constants:

 

const LOW_COVER_BONUS = 20;
const HIGH_COVER_BONUS = 40;

 

We're going to add 20 to each.

 

6) Open your favorite hexeditor and open up both HIGH_COVER_BONUS.const and LOW_COVER_BONUS.const in the \unpacked\XComGame\XGTacticalGameCoreNativeBase folder

 

LOW:

 

Offset(h) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F

00000000  55 10 00 00 32 55 00 00 00 00 00 00 55 10 00 00  U...2U......U...
00000010  03 00 00 00 32 30 00                             ....20.

 

HIGH

 

Offset(h) 00 01 02 03 04 05 06 07 08 09 0A 0B 0C 0D 0E 0F

00000000  56 10 00 00 32 55 00 00 00 00 00 00 56 10 00 00  V...2U......V...
00000010  03 00 00 00 34 30 00                             ....40.

 

You should immediately notice what you're going to want to change, so go ahead and do that.

 

7) save the two files, close UE Explorer, and then repack the folder into XComGame.upk

8 ) you can re-open that file in UE Explorer to verify your changes have the desired effect

 

const LOW_COVER_BONUS = 30;
const HIGH_COVER_BONUS = 60;

 

9) Go back to your \XComGame\CookedPCConsole folder, and backup your old XComGame.upk, and rename the XComGame.upk.uncompressed_size file to something else to get the game to load the uncompressed version of it.

10) Copy the new modified and repacked XComGame.upk to this folder

11) Run XSHAPE (otherwise your game will crash). It should say that 1 hash was updated.

 

That's it, you're done. :D

 

You'll have to test if that actually has any effect in the game. I don't know. Not all constants are actually used, unfortunately. Let me know how it goes :D

 

UPDATE: It appears to not use these constants ;) At least, the displayed numbers ingame don't change. I'll play with it and see if I notice a difference anyways.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Daemonjax

[mutonizer]

Bit busy on this Sunday but will for SURE play with this XSHAPE this afternoon. Awesome work Daemonjax!

[Caiman]

Since I had the same problem with base_num_rockets maybe only very few of XGTacticalGameCoreNativeBase`s constants are actually used?

[Daemonjax]

Since I had the same problem with base_num_rockets maybe only very few of XGTacticalGameCoreNativeBase`s constants are actually used?

 

Yeah, this has been the second out of two failed mods I tried. Both were modifying constants, and should have worked... but didn't.

 

These constant-rich files are starting to taste like a honeypot. ;)

 

Where the values used are actually defined might be in: \unpacked\XComGame\XGTacticalGameCoreNativeBase\

 

GetLowCoverBonus.Function

GetHighCoverBonus.Function

 

Or, it could be a massive display bug... maybe the changes do work, but they only way to know for sure would be to set them to like 200 and test via observations.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Daemonjax

[Mashadar]

7) save the two files, close UE Explorer, and then repack the folder into XComGame.upk

 

Wait, there's a packer? I've been hex editing the the upk directly.

[Daemonjax]

7) save the two files, close UE Explorer, and then repack the folder into XComGame.upk

 

Wait, there's a packer? I've been hex editing the the upk directly.

 

As far as I know the packer works (source: dreadylein).

 

In all honestly, I don't use it since I find it to be an unnecessary step.

 

It's easier to explain the process as if I had used it, so I just explained it that way. :D

 

But, if you're used to editing the upk directly, then you're not missing out on anything by doing it that way.

Edited October 21, 2012 by Daemonjax