Xenonaut Premium Preorder
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

18 Good

About Shoes

  • Rank
  1. So you're suggesting that these "achievements" really only grant XP, and then XP is spent on buying the desired perks? That's a neat way of down playing the importance of getting perks. Feels very RPGish, for better or for worse.
  2. TrashMan isn't wrong about gun-RNG being the same as soldier-RNG; however, lacking control over a gun is easier to swallow than lacking control over your soldier, especially as commander. It could be interesting to have soldiers panic in different ways. Instead of panic occurring at the start of a turn, there could be a chance every time TUs are used to panic the soldier. Knowing a soldier is shaken would make you careful about using large TU actions, like firing a gun, as he may panic and freeze instead. The TUs could be consumed by the failed action, but not set to zero. This would allow for a soldier to "panic" on firing a first shot, but then actually firing the second shot. I had considered a system where actions would take longer due to hesitation, but making everything cost x2 TUs is the same as starting with half TUs. I didn't think it was as interesting. Instead, only some actions could cost added TUs, such as firing.
  3. That's hilarious to imagine; all your soldiers walking onto the skyranger, and one by one their wounds violently manifest themselves. However, the rationale would be a design choice: it's the red fog option from XCOM. Some games don't have units get weaker when they're hurt, some do. It changes how the commander plays the field.
  4. Wow. Have some faith. Chris has said before, if the idea doesn't work, it doesn't make the cut. But you have to try it before you can know. And if it's good, you'll probably over look what ever problems you have.
  5. When I play shooters, I have to guess if wind and bullet falloff affect my accuracy. It takes some time with the game before I learn that. I would be surprised to find these things in a tactical game; instead, I would wonder why my long ranged shot are simply missing. Maybe my unit was facing the sun? What else is going on? I don't expect your position to be "pure sim > abstracted numbers", but instead that some abstractions can be done away with, or some information hidden. For example, XCOM2012 shows enemy health bars, Xcom 1994 and Xenonauts do not. I would want accuracy to remain visible - but would it be better to replace it with "very/likely/unlikely to hit"? The game Frozen Synapse went one step further, and removed all %s; instead, it was Time to Kill. It took a gunner 1.0s to kill a unit, but a shotgunner 0.5s to kill a unit who was in range. Battles were deterministic; the whole idea of the game was running simulations. The game wasn't any easier though, as it made unit placement and cover very important.
  6. That research tree sounds like something from the game Aurora; I only played it a bit. The research was oddly convoluted and obtuse (to me), but it actually felt super cool researching blue prints and creating design spec and stuff. I felt like I had a lot of control.
  7. @desertoth Great write up, I agree with a lot of your points. Especially that not all aliens would be equipped to the teeth in all missions; this could provide some of the early game ease and mid-game rookie training missions. It's reasonable for a scout to expect to outrun an interceptor. Maybe some of the bigger UFOs would carry more specialized equipment, like grenades or stun grenades. Your approach sounds very much real, and it makes me realize that mine very much treats this as a game, as if both the AI and the player are gearing up for a tactical fight, and they have to try and guess what the other is bringing. If all your suggestions would be realized, I think we would have a robust Planetary Defense game, but it might not resemble Xcom or Xenonauts very much! @Ninothree The idea of forcing the AI to deploy advanced weaponry in order to capture it crossed my mind too! I love the idea of an escalation happening, where the draw backs of "going in too deep" is that the weapons get so powerful that collateral damage is unavoidable. Alien armor being so thick that you have to level a city block to penetrate it, or switching to puny lasers and melting it. The game AI War: Fleet Command is said to have a pretty robust AI, but I haven't played it enough to see it shine.
  8. There has been quite a bit of discussion where ideas were brought forward with the intent of having the soldier take more than just "recently unlocked" tech onto the field. In Xcom 1994, once you has plasma weapons, you did not take lasers into the field. I thought this thread could bring forward ideas that would want to make the player take a variety of tech out into the field. My idea is tied around a game theory example of soccer player versus soccer goalie in a penalty shot. Does he shoot left, right or center? (see this article to get an idea of what I mean: So to take the late game as an example, the player could take Ballistics, Laser or Plasma into the field, and the aliens could use pro-Ballistic, pro-Laser or pro-Plasma armor into the field. The aliens would use game theory and probability to attempt to predict what tech you will field, based on your past choices, and use the appropriate armor; it's up to the commander to mix things up. So there would be diminishing returns in always running Plasma, as eventually the entire alien force would be running pro-Plasma armor. But maybe running all Plasma and then raiding a base with Laser weapons would catch the aliens entirely off guard. This would make unlocking some Tier 4 tech a trick up ones sleeve, as you could save it to raid a particularly difficult to beat target and be guaranteed not to run into any pro-Tier 4 armor, as the aliens would have never seen it coming. In the early game, this kind of weapon/armor rock-paper-scissors gives a different kind of power boost to the tech tree. Unlocking lasers isn't awesome because they "do more damage", but because the aliens aren't fielding pro-Laser armor. This way, all the weapons can be "even", but unlocking them gives you an extra dimension on the battlefield. They can each excel at something (lasers being more accurate is the common trope), but the commander will still need to run multiple techs to ensure balance. Unlocking lasers and then running them all the time also might not be an optimal strategy, because then you will run into pro-Laser armor more often. Maybe it will be best for your sharpshooter to run Laser in order to take down important targets, while the rest is running Ballistics. The aliens could run a 2:1 ration of pro-Ballistic:pro-Laser, but what does the officer wear? The implementation of this idea rests on a very robust game theory model for the aliens. Maybe such a model is impractically complicated and won't work, as there are too many variables at play here. The aliens would have to "learn" how you attack downed UFOs, landed UFOs, terror missions, base raids, base defenses and the ratios of weapons you use in order to make smart decisions, otherwise they will be to easily gamed. They will also have to "learn" who typically runs what tech; maybe your best men always run the "worse" tech, so then the aliens would have to equip their best men with the "worse" armor. Edit: A more scholarly document: ; they discuss the soccer example at page 53, which is page 63 of the pdf.
  9. Massive Chalice did something neat for this: when you're hovering over a tile, enemies would have icons pop up over them, one for "enemy can see you" and one for "you can shoot at enemy". It was a quick and clean way of knowing information that shouldn't be hidden.
  10. Do you lose the armor that Xenonauts are wearing if they die in the field? I feel like that was the case for Xcom, but not for Xenonauts. I may be misremembering. I like the danger of losing high value armor in the field due to soldier death.
  11. I don't think I recall seeing it mentioned, but perhaps unlocking or mastering different tech paths can have synergistic effects with other paths. Having a strong mastery of ballistics could grant minor buffs to accuracy of all weapons, and mastering laser weapons could lower the TU usage of all weapons. The purpose would be to lessen the "sunken investment" feeling of having Ballistics X, and then finally realizing you need at least Laser II to take out a unit. Having Ballistic X would still buff your Laser II to remain competitive. The implementation of my idea might not be great, but having synergies in the tech tree might be worth looking at.
  12. Given that the game is in 3D now, what about some super sweet camera pans? I don't know what "super sweet" means here, but some cinematic panning showing the edge of the fog of war would be neat.
  13. I think the XCOM2012 robotic unit transformations were a good way to make the player think "oh wtf is happening". Having androns transform when they engage in their melee kamekazi mode could both look cool and tell the player to back off.
  14. Your logic is valid, but your premise is unsound. Your mistake is using what is known about X2, because the game is in the design stage and none of these things are concrete.
  15. I really like the idea of buffs and debuffs. Final Fantasy Tactics Advanced 2 (as well as other games I'm sure) used this to a good effect; you could beserk people, blind them, poison, immobilize, or buff their attack, speed, etc. I like the idea of enemies being overpowered, but that the clever use of buffs and debuffs leveling the playing field. It opens a new dimension of battle. With it comes the classic "Androns don't get de/buffs" and "Reapers are only affected by certain de/buffs". I think having all of these de/buffs in the game would be jarring or hard to explain, but a good lot of them could fit.