• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

11 Good

About Dranak

  • Rank

Recent Profile Visitors

5,685 profile views
  1. It seems like a novel solution to the problem, but will it be fun to players to have to manage their ammo supply? I see the value in having to choose "Is this mission worth using my best weapons on?" from a design point, but I'm not certain if it will be fun or not. At a minimum, I would suggest having unlocking them provide a moderate amount of ammo supply, so you can start using them right away and then choose whether or not to invest into more.
  2. Or if it's a "shadow war" scenario, the aliens could simply choose to not do terror attacks.
  3. I believe Chris has said the current plan is to make the air combat turn based as well, and less about micromanaging individual planes and more high level guidance. Obviously that will require playtesting to see how/if it works. @Sheepy Newer civ titles just let the overflow add to your next project, if needed they could probably adopt a similar system here.
  4. I do agree that the teleporter would need a strong in-game justification for it to make sense and not feel completely out of place.
  5. I think it would be reasonable to say wounded troops don't take place in recovery ops, so it would just be a matter of balancing the wound timers for them.
  6. Alternatively, instead of "snapping" back your troops could stay with the crash site to coordinate recovery operations, and then return with the salvage via conventional means. That could step back the sci-fi a bit, while also serving as a justification for your troops being unavailable for several days post-mission. That would have the side effect of making UFO missions (oversee recovery ops, get salvage, but takes longer to return and possibly miss next alien attack) different from terror missions or other "just go fight aliens" type missions, (mostly just corpses, so much less recovery/salvage time).
  7. Not everything needs to be a hard choice, but it should still be a choice. I'm not programmer, but I know things are rarely as simple to program as they seem. You're also missing that in addition to tracking movement status (distance and reset status), they would need to design a system for different categories of action (movement vs non-move). Each of those pieces requires coding time, testing time, playtesting, and bug testing. What if you move your soldier one tile at a time over the same distance? What if they turn while moving and vaulting (costs TU, counted as a separate action most likely?), it's a bunch of moving pieces to have to track and a system to design that may or may not even have a problem to solve. I think before deciding if such a system would even be needed we will need to playtest a bunch and determine if reaction fire is too deadly/accurate during movement. Right now it's a solution for a problem that may not exist.
  8. The point you're missing is that research and shooting still involve choices. What order to research things in and how much to invest in supporting research is a choice. Choosing what shots to take, in what order, and how to maneuver for those shots are meaningful choices. In X1 if you have the TUs to crouch, it is always the correct choice. You don't need to ask "Should I crouch?" because the answer is always "Yes." The question then becomes "Do I have enough TUs to crouch?" If yes, crouch. If no, don't. To make crouching (as it exists in X1) an actual interesting choice there would need to be a downside associated with it, probably in the form of a significantly higher TU cost. That could achieve a balance goal, but it also would most likely seem like the obvious game mechanic it would be and invite complaints about the "unrealistic" high cost of crouching. A defense bonus vs reaction fire while moving is a completely different mechanic than crouching. Superficially it sounds like a pain to implement and balance, but it could potentially have some value. You could probably accomplish something rather similar by adding a penalty to reaction fire triggered by movement.
  9. Game mechanics are more important than realism. Yes, I realize that crouching IRL is both fast and generally makes you able to shoot more accurately. In terms of game design/balance though, a cheap TU cost action that is nearly always correct to do is just boring. It's not really a choice if it's always the correct thing to do. That's not an interesting mechanic/choice, doesn't add to decision making (no decision to be made since it's almost always correct) and is just an additional bit of difficulty for newer players that haven't yet learned to always crouch. Replacing it with a button labeled as Hunker Down/Take Cover/Try Not To Die with a moderate cost would add choices such as "Do I save TUs for reaction fire or take a pure defensive action?" and "Do I spend a consumable item (smoke grenade) to protect an exposed soldier, or just order them to hunker, or do both?" Crouching as it existed in X1 doesn't provide those sort of choices, because you were always going to crouch that soldier because it's objectively a better move in nearly all circumstances.
  10. Everyone spams crouch in X1 because it is poorly balanced and overpowered. It's an obvious choice that is nearly always the correct action. Chris said above the goal is to make that no longer be the case for X2. As proposed for this game there is no offense bonus for crouching, just a defensive bonus at a moderately high cost (high enough to prevent the X1 behaviour of crouching almost always being correct). At that point you may as well call it something else (helps prevent confusion with players expecting it to behave the same as in X1).
  11. Well, you make a compelling argument for your opinion. /s How about replacing it with a pure defense option? Something like drain all TUs for X defense bonus (with a minimum TU cost to activate to prevent constant spam). It would give a defensive option with a bit of a trade (loss of ability to reaction fire), and seems like it might be easier to balance.
  12. I like this idea. Graphically, your units should probably crouch when near cover, but mechanically does it really add much to ground combat?
  13. Your examples really don't illustrate a difference. Your interceptor either finishes building in time to attack a UFO wave, or it doesn't. Your soldier is either recovered in time to go on a mission, or they aren't. Something finishing during a UFO wave in a RTS style geoscape is functionally the same as it finishing at the start of that turn on a turn based one. I can't honestly think of a single game element that would be significantly changed by this other than UFO interception and possibly the day/night mission cycle. UFOs last a fixed amount of time, and will never despawn in X1 while a dropship is enroute. That means once you understand those systems well, you can always determine if a crash site will be able to be hit in daylight hours. Once you reach a certain level of game knowledge, night time crash sites effectively cease to exist; this signifiantly weakened/undermined the day/night cycle in the ground combat.
  14. The goal seems to be two-fold, to force deeper rosters and create incentives to not run every single possible mission. Sure, a stress system would accomplish a similar outcome. I mentioned travel time as an alternative because sometimes simpler solutions are better, and it would certainly be far easier for Goldhawk to implement/balance than a whole stress mechanic. I'm not certain which would be better (that's what play testing would be for).
  15. Those things are still functionally turn-based. There's really no significant difference between "wait three days" and "wait three turns" on the Geoscape. Same for construction/research. The only thing that seems like it would be significantly impacted is UFO interception, and the day/night cycle for ground combat. Those would be two significant changes. I see potential for forcing meaningful choices in the interception game (ie which UFOs to attack, instead of just running as many sorties as possible with all your planes now), I'm less certain of the benefits of how this would affect day/night missions. Then again, in X1 the correct choice was to always just do missions in daylight, unless you really needed to hit a terror mission or landed UFO at night due to time constraints.