UPDATE: Long War 2 Patch 1.1 is now available

Post Reply
User avatar
Valaska
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:45 am

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by Valaska »

wadeanthony wrote:When the update is applied will the changes to Sparks (level up growths mainly) take affect or will I have to start a new game/ build a new spark for it get the changes?
These are ini. changes, so things like HP values on X unit etc will be instant and retroactive.
Legatus
Posts: 13
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 10:56 am

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by Legatus »

Started a new campaign today. Was doing an infiltration mission the f**** aliens just keep following me around even concealed, the when i get to the objective i have and have to go loud all the stupid pods get activated at the same time, now that i know its a bug im not going to even try to play this like this.
ricken007
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by ricken007 »

For the love of god PLEASE can you try to fix this error. Ive been trying for the last four days and have come to the conclusion that there is not fix i can achieve on my end. Ive tried everything and am 99% certian that it is the LW2 mod that is causing the problem unfortunetly. "Pure virtual function being called while application was running (GIsRunning = = 1) " I get it when i load the game up, after the initial flash screens just before it loads the main menu. Then boom CTD. Its sucking the very soul out of my being please help, i really want to give the long war a go. I loved the original LW.

Ive atached the last launchlog file which i hope can help. Thanks in advance :cry:
Attachments
Launch-backup-2017.01.25-20.49.59.rar
this is the last log of my launch attempts
(25.97 KiB) Downloaded 596 times
User avatar
johnnylump
Site Admin
Posts: 1262
Joined: Wed Nov 11, 2015 4:12 am

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by johnnylump »

This is the wrong thread to ask for troubleshooting help. We have troubleshooting instructions and a bug reporting thread elsewhere on this forum.

I looked at your log and the GIGuarded bit is either copy protection kicking in or a memory protection error, neither of which we can help with. You should verify your vanilla files.
ricken007
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 8:57 pm

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by ricken007 »

Ok well thanks for taking the time to look i appreciate it. And sorry ive just signed up and didnt know where to post. Wont happen again. Thanks.
mynystry
Posts: 3
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 5:47 am

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by mynystry »

johnnylump wrote: Balancing / Gameplay
- Set Mission Timers modifier to +2 on veteran sted +1, because we listen and care
Well, hopefully that fixes it, 'cause it has been very frustrating. Last night I tried again and I got a jailbreak mission, the guys i had to rescue were really far away, i dashes every single turn and when i finally reached them i had only one turn left, and of course 2 enemy pods just popped... impossible mission! Lost all the squad and I just gave up... hopefully the patch comes out soon.

BTW, I checked forums and my soldiers had base movement of around 15, and I also did not use any other mod.

Thanks
mc322
Posts: 18
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 3:41 am

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by mc322 »

They have said repeatedly that they don't want to duplicate functionality that is already available in the mod pool. In general, purely cosmetic mods should not interfere with Long War in any way. I have been running with Symmetrical Arms (and a bunch of other cosmetic mods) with no issues.
Gotcha, good to know I always run with symmetrical arms or another mod good for this called individual arms.
Vordulak
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:34 pm

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by Vordulak »

- Swapped around Covert, Conceal and Tradecraft on Shinobi tree. NOTE: THIS WILL CHANGE EXISTING CAMPAIGNS. Sorry, can't be avoided.
- Swapped Chain Shot and Tandem Warheads on Grenadier tree. NOTE: ALSO SORRY.
Quick question, because I am an idiot who knows nothing about modding--I am assuming that we will be able to retrain Shinobis and Grenadiers in the AWC in order to fix the mixed up perk selection, so my question is about how to modify the relevant ini to reduce the AWC retraining time to the minimum.

Am I correct that the relevant ini file is XComGameData.ini in the Documents/MyGames/XCOM2/XComGame/Config folder, and that I modify the values in this section:

XComHeadquarters_DefaultRespecSoldierDays[0]=0 ;Easy
XComHeadquarters_DefaultRespecSoldierDays[1]=5 ;Normal
XComHeadquarters_DefaultRespecSoldierDays[2]=5 ;Classic
XComHeadquarters_DefaultRespecSoldierDays[3]=10;Impossible

My understanding is that the retraining time in LW2 scales up according to a soldier's rank, but is that scaling based off a multiplier modifying the original value or a hard # of days added per rank? I'm trying to get a sense of how long it will take to fix the trees of my highly ranked shinobis and grenadiers.

Thanks! Love the mod! So glad you all did this for Xcom2.
sarge945
Posts: 124
Joined: Sun Jan 22, 2017 1:47 am

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by sarge945 »

Vordulak wrote:
- Swapped around Covert, Conceal and Tradecraft on Shinobi tree. NOTE: THIS WILL CHANGE EXISTING CAMPAIdiot's Gaming NewsS. Sorry, can't be avoided.
- Swapped Chain Shot and Tandem Warheads on Grenadier tree. NOTE: ALSO SORRY.
Quick question, because I am an idiot who knows nothing about modding--I am assuming that we will be able to retrain Shinobis and Grenadiers in the AWC in order to fix the mixed up perk selection, so my question is about how to modify the relevant ini to reduce the AWC retraining time to the minimum.

Am I correct that the relevant ini file is XComGameData.ini in the Documents/MyGames/XCOM2/XComGame/Config folder, and that I modify the values in this section:

XComHeadquarters_DefaultRespecSoldierDays[0]=0 ;Easy
XComHeadquarters_DefaultRespecSoldierDays[1]=5 ;Normal
XComHeadquarters_DefaultRespecSoldierDays[2]=5 ;Classic
XComHeadquarters_DefaultRespecSoldierDays[3]=10;Impossible

My understanding is that the retraining time in LW2 scales up according to a soldier's rank, but is that scaling based off a multiplier modifying the original value or a hard # of days added per rank? I'm trying to get a sense of how long it will take to fix the trees of my highly ranked shinobis and grenadiers.

Thanks! Love the mod! So glad you all did this for Xcom2.
I am not an expert on modding either, but the file you want will be in the Long War 2 folder, not your base game config folder.

If you are using the alternate mod manager, you can easily open up the mods folder in explorer. If not, you have to dig through your workshop directories to find it
Surrealistik
Posts: 36
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 12:18 am

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by Surrealistik »

Are PCS unlockable on Sparks?

If not, shouldn't they be disabled for them?
Vordulak
Posts: 4
Joined: Wed Jan 25, 2017 11:34 pm

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by Vordulak »

sarge945 wrote: I am not an expert on modding either, but the file you want will be in the Long War 2 folder, not your base game config folder.

If you are using the alternate mod manager, you can easily open up the mods folder in explorer. If not, you have to dig through your workshop directories to find it
Yes! I found the correct ini now, and I can see the modders' tooltips/explanations within. Thank you!
Sines
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:36 pm

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by Sines »

Valaska wrote:
wadeanthony wrote:When the update is applied will the changes to Sparks (level up growths mainly) take affect or will I have to start a new game/ build a new spark for it get the changes?
These are ini. changes, so things like HP values on X unit etc will be instant and retroactive.
Glad to hear, I was pretty sure this was the case, but confirmation is nice. SPARKs were very disappointing in Vanilla, and so the thing I was most looking forward to in LW2 was the changes to be made to them. I had just beaten Julian and gotten my SPARK before I read about the upcoming changes, and after hearing that Pavonis was in the "Poke at it until it doesn't fall over" stage, I figured that meant that the update would come soon enough for me to take a break and play other games while I wait to take my badass LW2 1.1 SPARK into his first combat.

Finally, Julian will have a chassis worthy of his greatness :D
User avatar
Valaska
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:45 am

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by Valaska »

Yeah I took Spark out on one mission and it died in a few turns.
Pendrako
Posts: 66
Joined: Sat Jan 21, 2017 2:03 am

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by Pendrako »

You're not using it right then.

as a veteran of 3 LW1 campaigns, you learn pretty quickly that most MEC types can't stand up to punishment, so you learn to position them better, and to focus fire on what would be the greatest threat to the SPARK, i.e. guys with Shredder Weapons, that Ruler, Gatekeeper, etc.

not everything can tank like the Goliath could. i still remember watching 15+ aliens getting no-sold by one of mine.
Sines
Posts: 159
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 8:36 pm

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by Sines »

The biggest problem people have with SPARKs is that they're kinda sold as tanks, when they're really nothing of the sort. They're hardier than your soldiers, but that's to make up for their inability to take cover. You still want to minimize the hits they take, and make use of the "Doesn't need cover" to get flanks or good heavy weapons positioning. They're most like Assaults or Technicals with a bit more freedom of positioning.

1.1 SPARKs do look to be tougher though. But even then, damage means repair time. That they can take hits better than your soldiers just means that they're better choices for risky flanks or scouts. But it's still best if you can avoid the risks in the first place.
User avatar
Arcalane
Posts: 339
Joined: Thu Jan 19, 2017 10:42 pm

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by Arcalane »

Sines wrote:1.1 SPARKs do look to be tougher though. But even then, damage means repair time. That they can take hits better than your soldiers just means that they're better choices for risky flanks or scouts. But it's still best if you can avoid the risks in the first place.
Ablative HP means no repair time, so no, actually. ;)
User avatar
Mickey -renraw-
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jan 12, 2017 2:24 am

Re: My thoughts and experiences so far...

Post by Mickey -renraw- »

Lorkenpeist wrote:
Mickey -renraw- wrote:No body ever missed a point blank shot and said "wow I'm having so much fun with this game I'm loving it!"
*raises hand*
My most memorable (and enjoyable) experience in XCOM 2 was when I missed a shot that I really shouldn't have on a black site mission and lost my only 2 specialists as a result. It was my darkest hour and really drove home the feeling of "that's XCOM baby!" It also made my win that much more satisfying when I went on to pick up the pieces and finish the game without losing even one more soldier (on Commander honest man) until the final turn off the final mission. I gotta say, I look forward to many more heart wrenching moments like that in LW2!

Does that make me the only sane person on the planet or the craziest? If i could i would remove as much of the dice rolls as possible to make the game more about tactics and choice and less about whether your tactics and choice actually have any effect because you didn't hit the right randomly generated number :S
And I'm sure Long War 2 will give you all the heart wrenching moments you desire, like having a pod roll up and trigger on your flank and taking out 2 of your troopers before you even knew what was happening. That is an example of brutal gameplay and in my opinion, not luck based gameplay, keeping track of the enemy either through concealment scouting or audio cues once revealed can save your troops. Unless of course you were keeping track of the enemy and you had everyone in full cover and on overwatch and all your shots missed and then the enemies yellow alert reaction move pops 2 of your guys out of full cover- then THAT'S XCOM BABY! :D But atleast give us as many definitives to work with as the gameplay would allow, make it more about tactics and choice and less about RNG :S
gftgy
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:49 am

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by gftgy »

Putting the thread back on topic:

I've been playing around a lot with the AWC. Some things I've noticed:
The AWC generates all of the perks to learn simultaneously. This means that a soldier might get multiple instances of the same pistol perk, while excluding others. Making an .ini adjustment +AWCRestrictions=(AWCAbility="Gunslinger", RestrictedAbility="Gunslinger") [for example] doesn't work either, as despite what the comment on AWCRestrictions says, since the AWC abilities are all generated simultaneously, making a restricted ability will only have an impact if it is pre-existing on the soldier's class list.

Therefore
johnnylump wrote:- Added a bunch of AWC perks to each level, lots of doubling up and a few (Combat Fitness, Lone Wolf, Damn Good Ground) that cross offense and defense
If I'm reading this correctly, you plan on filling all 7 ranks (compared to the 3 ranks you have now), with offensive and defensive perks, many of which will be available at multiple ranks. This means that the available offensive and defensive perks to train will suffer from the same problem as the pistol abilities, "doubling up." When this happens, the soldier will not only lose out on the opportunity of having a more useful perk to train, but will also be forced to train the redundant perk simply to gain access to the next tier. The same issue exists for having the same perks on offensive and defensive lists.

Also regarding the AWC, but perhaps not specifically this patch, is that most of the "AWCAbilityTree..." settings seem to be cooked into the mod, as they are redundant (and therefore persist after changes to) the AWCPack.ini. This means that commenting out most abilities still results in them being selected for the soldier, and a perk added to the tree is half as likely to be selected as one currently on it. (side note: Bombardier seems to be on this "cooked" +AWCAbilityTree_Offense=(Level=2... list, even though it is not in the AWCPACK.ini at that level, meaning in conjunction with the above it can be picked for both levels 2 and 3 of the offensive list.)

Additionally, "RestrictedClass=" seems to filter out an ability from ALL classes, not just the one selected. Since this list also seems to be cooked, removing the section in the .ini still doesn't allow WalkFire, RapidFire, Holotargeting, CloseCombatspecialist, Shadowstep, LightningReflexes_LW, Phantom, Suppression_LW, TraverseFire, PrecisionShot, Flush, CloseandPersonal, Stealth, HailofBullets, IronCurtain, CyclicFire, and EverVigilant. Also Aggression, DoubleTap, and Resilience seem cooked for exclusion, despite not being on a RestrictedClass= in the .ini.
johnnylump wrote:AWC Abilities button in Armory (and foreknowledge of trainable AWC abilities) does not appear until you build AWC
I don't like this change since the AWC is buggy. If I start a game and my soldiers have some messed up AWC perks, I'd rather know immediately upon promotion rather than waiting to complete the AWC. If this is related to training AWC skills from the armory, I would simply disable that change.

It took a lot of testing to narrow this all down. Hope this helps.
Last edited by gftgy on Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
gftgy
Posts: 13
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 8:49 am

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by gftgy »

Removed duplicate post.
Last edited by gftgy on Sat Jan 28, 2017 2:09 am, edited 1 time in total.
LordYanaek
Posts: 940
Joined: Mon Jan 23, 2017 1:34 pm

Re: My thoughts and experiences so far...

Post by LordYanaek »

Mickey -renraw- wrote: Does that make me the only sane person on the planet or the craziest? If i could i would remove as much of the dice rolls as possible...
Well, maybe being sane in a crazy world is the worst form of craziness :lol:
Actually, i'm with you on the "less RNG is better" boat and i've already edited my ini's to reduce the damage spread of weapons with high spread like the shotgun, we already have RNG determine whether we hit and some damage variation with graze band, no need to add damage roulette.

However, for this particular case i think it makes sense that you can miss those shots. Even if you take the sectoid by surprise because you just cornered him and you are actually "point-blank", it means you must fire in the fraction of seconds before he reacts, all this with a rookie who never looked on of those things in the eyes ... And don't talk about stalking it from behind, that's a Shinobi's job ;)
Then, from the pure practical game-play point of view, we are talking about rookies here. You won't field many of those. As soon as you have squaddies and you start equipping shotguns on some soldiers you'll have much better chances for those close quarters shots.
Now, we could argue whether raising it by 5% (so you are at base 90% and with grazing band of 10%, at worst you don't totally miss them) would be a good change. I wouldn't argue against such a change, but i wouldn't worry if it stays as is either.
User avatar
Arantir
Posts: 33
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2017 7:20 am

Re: My thoughts and experiences so far...

Post by Arantir »

Mickey -renraw- wrote:No body ever missed a point blank shot and said "wow I'm having so much fun with this game I'm loving it!
I agree, the range bonuses in XCOM 1 were close to perfect and the only way you can miss a point-blank shot was due to mindfray, poison, strangle, severe red fog, high enemy defence or misuse of a sniper rifle. Damn, going for a close range bonus was the only reliable way to kill something without using grenades during early game. XCOM 2 instead got a pretty artificial way of creating those "heartbreaking" moments by reducing the max range bonuses. I assume the initial idea is to add even more tension, but it just looks so unnecessarily silly and we already have more than enough tension going around with guerrilla warfare stuff and timed missions. Engaging enemies at point-blank is already a risky move most of the time, but having only 80-90% to hit gonna inevitably get your troops killed sooner or later if you're going for agressive close-range flanking shots. That just feels unjust. :(
Seeing enemies miss you at point-blank is not good either, you're absolutely deserve to get hit if your tactical play failed to prevent this from happening.

I would absolutely love if LW2 could fix the range bonuses, the combat during early game on higher difficulties feel really more RNG-reliant than it should be because of them for the time being.
LoadStar81
Posts: 14
Joined: Thu Jan 26, 2017 2:15 pm

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by LoadStar81 »

It appears that Rapid Deployment does not work with flashbang grenades. Back in the previous perks mod, this was due to an incorrect object name, "StunGrenade" vs "StingGrenade". Might this same naming issue have happened again in LW2?

Here is the relevant quote by Johnny from the perks mod:

[–]johnnylump 1 point 5 months ago

It looks like we had a bad config value. In the config file for LW_Perkpack.ini, line 349, +VALID_GRENADE_TYPES="StunGrenade" should be +VALID_GRENADE_TYPES="StingGrenade" ... will be fixed in next update. Thanks again for the outpoint.
rakoon79
Posts: 93
Joined: Wed Dec 30, 2015 8:03 am

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by rakoon79 »

- Fix bug causing AI to adjust their patrol paths in response to XCOM's movement without any direct knowledge of them. (Default behavior can be re-enabled via config)
Is this ini-configurable right now? or did you mean we can re-enable "adjust their patrol paths in response to XCOM's movement without any direct knowledge" after you fix the bug?
Jadiel
Posts: 214
Joined: Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:28 am

Re: Pending Changelist for 1.1 (NOT RELEASED)

Post by Jadiel »

LoadStar81 wrote:It appears that Rapid Deployment does not work with flashbang grenades. Back in the previous perks mod, this was due to an incorrect object name, "StunGrenade" vs "StingGrenade". Might this same naming issue have happened again in LW2?
Rapid Deployment doesn't work with Flashbangs in 1.1? Or in the current release? It works fine for me at the moment...
User avatar
Valaska
Posts: 197
Joined: Tue Feb 02, 2016 5:45 am

Re: My thoughts and experiences so far...

Post by Valaska »

Arantir wrote:
Mickey -renraw- wrote:No body ever missed a point blank shot and said "wow I'm having so much fun with this game I'm loving it!
I agree, the range bonuses in XCOM 1 were close to perfect and the only way you can miss a point-blank shot was due to mindfray, poison, strangle, severe red fog, high enemy defence or misuse of a sniper rifle. Damn, going for a close range bonus was the only reliable way to kill something without using grenades during early game. XCOM 2 instead got a pretty artificial way of creating those "heartbreaking" moments by reducing the max range bonuses. I assume the initial idea is to add even more tension, but it just looks so unnecessarily silly and we already have more than enough tension going around with guerrilla warfare stuff and timed missions. Engaging enemies at point-blank is already a risky move most of the time, but having only 80-90% to hit gonna inevitably get your troops killed sooner or later if you're going for agressive close-range flanking shots. That just feels unjust. :(
Seeing enemies miss you at point-blank is not good either, you're absolutely deserve to get hit if your tactical play failed to prevent this from happening.

I would absolutely love if LW2 could fix the range bonuses, the combat during early game on higher difficulties feel really more RNG-reliant than it should be because of them for the time being.
Hm more and more I think back on it you guys are right, I enjoyed that a lot more than these 20% point blanks.

Just started a new campaign and I was wondering what will recruits and engineers drop down to for cost of supplies?
Post Reply