Akrakorn1

Members
  • Content count

    10
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About Akrakorn1

  • Rank
    Rookie
  1. Adding a "cooldown" to the Translocator would fix that. It's a huge device that draws a lot of power, so it can make sense within the lore. The only "issue" is that your troops will never be "on the air" so to speak, so they will always be either safe within the base or in a battle, but I don't personally see this much of an issue. I hated having my base attacked with my dropship 1km away from the base in X1.
  2. I still think adding a TB-based geoscape over a RT one could be a huge improvement to the game so I'm personally pumped to see the first implementation of it.
  3. They could be added as rewards for capturing/doing certain sectors/missions if we do decide to implement the risk-esque Shadow War.
  4. But that's not the problem; leaving a soldier at home so the others can carry a lot more is in my opinion a valid strategy that you could use in X2. The problem in X1 is that you could load up your soldiers with as much weight as you wanted and then, once the missions begins, leave all of it in the helicopter for later use. With the Translocator this wouldn't be possible and would force the player to consider the soldier's loadouts more carefully.
  5. The reason most people hated the time limit mechanic in XCOM 2 is because it forces them to be VERY aggressive and start taking out blacksites to quickly lower the Avatar project's progress (in the "geoscape") and try to rush through the battle as quickly as possible to reach the objective, which leads to casualties you can't really work around (plus you can't extract your soldiers in certain missions unless you go THROUGH the enemy lines, but that's besides the point). I really doubt adding this losing counter to the game would cause as much hatred (if any) as XCOM 2's time limit since it wouldn't force you to be aggresive; in fact, it'd be the opposite. You would need to choose your battles carefully as to not draw too much attention and get an early loss. I agree that, as a shadowy military "corporation" that is Xenonauts, money doesn't make complete sense... however, this could be replaced by spending "influence". Adding an influence resource that the player could use in the geoscape would open up a lot of possibilities for events. Want to flip a neutral or alien-controlled pawn? Spend a bit of influence, with its results showing up after a few turns. Want to assassinate a pawn that is causing you a lot of immediate trouble, quick and dirty? Spend a lot of influence, but it's instantaneous. Influence could be gained by controlling certain pawns or regions in the geoscape; this would give the player yet another reason to capture certain locations first or wrestle for ground control.
  6. The teleporter could have limitations which would favour using the UFOs over the teleporter in most cases: cooldown, poor range (if trying to be used from outer space), a large facility to house the (presumably) immense teleporter or a huge amount of power generation/reserves. My assumption is that the Xenonaut faction steals the first (or one of the first) teleporter the aliens attempt to build on the ground, which means the aliens would still need to use UFOs to travel around before they build other teleporters. This could be tied into the turn-based geoscape mechanics; if the aliens build a teleporter on a region/pawn to let them send strike teams instantaneously, that would give the player one more reason to fight over the pawns/regions and shut down their facilities. I disagree on transport vehicles having the same logic. A vehicle can store MUCH more weight than the soldiers can carry, which begs the question... why not fill it with a lot more gear (which is what happened in X1)? Or, even more, why not send two vehicles instead? Having the weight limit be tied to the teleporter gives the devs more flexibility to balance things gameplaywise, which is, in my opinion, the most important part. This mechanic is tied very intimately with the rest of the implementations Chris has said (such as only having one base), so I feel like wanting to implement the Translocator or not heavily depends with wether you agree or not with said changes, which is completely fair. I'm personally liking them a lot.
  7. You mention "immersion break", but personally I see no problem with it if the reason the Xenonauts have it is because they stole it from the aliens. They would stille use conventional weaponry alongside the teleporter because that's all they would have at that point.
  8. I'm all up for perks as long as it doesn't "lock" soldiers into specific roles, as @Pave above has said.
  9. I'm all up for these changes. I was a bit sad to see how in Xenonauts 1 the alleged "political turmoil" of the Cold War didn't mechanically affect the world in any way. Making the Shadow War the game's primary concept would be a fresh spin on things which I really like.
  10. Personally I really like the idea of switching the geoscape so it becomes turn-based instead of real-time. Just as Chris said, it already was pseudo turn-based, as you just waited for the next event to happen. The only problem would be how to properly do interceptions, but I'm sure there are other ways to implement them that would fit the bill nicely. I really don't see how real-time strategy is superior aside from it being a nostalgia from days past. Having a turn-based strategy layer just sets up the system for a lot of future stuff and is, in my opinion, way more flexible and easier to manage than real time.