Indestructible interceptors?

[ThunderGr]

4) Making more money from UFOs so we can spend more money to rebuild lost planes. After mission i see destroyed..destroyed..destroyed. Should be sold..sold..sold. Right now lost plane = almost game over.

5) Rebalance UFO. Make them less accurate, doing less damage, using less fighters, ect.

6) Rebalance our planes. Make them stronger, faster, ect.

7) Rebalance weapons. Make them do less damage.

8) Remove fighters from game (worst balancing scenario)

There is another solution. Use our brains to outsmart the AI in tactical combat...Oh, hell, wait! In order to do that we would have to think! Damn! And it sounded like such a good idea...

[Mytheos]

Making planes emergency disengage is the best solution. If cash balance is the problem then it's not a problem. just give the player less cash. That way you don't need to mess too much with the relative costs of production items (unless you want to), and their consequent cost-effectiveness. Or make everything cost a certain % more.

People are very change resistant. If right now the game had disengaging aircraft and you decided to change it to have them die, some people who are now crying against change would be complaining just as hard, just because they're used to something already. Make the best game you'd like to play yourself and don't listen to noone

Air Combat in XCOM 94 was trivial.

This game changed it to try to mean something

People liked that.

Then this game decided to make Air Combat essentially Trivial again.

People are angry.

When you say people are too stupid to know why they are angry and are just being angry because something is different...it is insulting.

This isnt the first time someone has told you this exact same thing on this forum.

I dont think you gain anything from insulting people nor do you add anything to the conversation by doing so.

You essentially say you're dumb and you dont even get it and completely ignore the suggestions and opinions they are offering forth.

Spend time looking at alternate suggestions and provide feedback on them.

(Maybe it isnt your intention, and this is text I cant see your face or hear the emphasis of your words, but I'm not the only one that is getting a sense of, AHAHAA the dev likes my idea best, everyone else is stupid...I assume you arent trying to relay this, I hope.)

Edited July 7, 2013 by Mytheos

[thothkins]

"Git yer possible air combat solutions! two fer a dollar! git 'em here!"

[Mytheos]

My thoughts on the subject recompiled as this is the official thread now.

Problem : Air Craft are essential to the game, losing them is a great cost, one so great it causes players without a mastery of Air Combat to experience a Game Over scenario just by losing one or two, or at least vastly increases the difficulty for players already struggling.

Proposed Solution : Hit the emergency eject button on this game's attempt to take what XCOM did and make it better in respect to Air Combat, having a new found understanding of why Air Combat was trivialized in XCOM94.

Please understand the following:

The initial desire was to add depth to Air Combat and add it as another source of "loss" for the player. (Perma-Death is an undeniable reason this game and XCOM94 were successful)

[What does not work and why]

"Balance the economy to compensate for early Air Craft Losses."

- This will result in players good at Air Combat getting more money, which will not be spent on losses, as they will not be taking any. It will be instead be spend on Weapons/Armor/Base Construction which will cause an obvious problem. You are balancing one thing and by doing so you are unbalancing another.

"Lower the cost of Condors, Make them free"

#1 This asks the Devs to find a balance between, "I am going to take this seriously, the loss is painful" and "Who cares?" The obvious middle being "Ah that sucks, but oh well" which sounds too much like who cares, and you lose any reasonable sense of loss. (How painful is x vs y is attempting to solve how hot is hot and how cold is cold, and causes another Casual vs Hardcore war)

#2 What is the cost of a Condor? The answer isnt 100k. The values that can be adjusted are time and money, however trying to adjust either of those will not adjust the "cost".

(Huh?)

The cost is money to buy the Condor, the Time spent to create it and what you lose by NOT having it because it was destroyed, such as...

+Lost points for being unable to shoot down UFOs.

+Lost Money for recovering UFOs.

+Lost recoverable Alien Technology (Potential Player Progression)

+Lost Research Time. (You had nothing to research so your scientists did nothing for 3 days, because you missed recovering new tech)

So when you consider this you can see how the actual cost can vary from the assumed 100k and X amount of time to more than double that, not even including whatever value you want to place on the lost tech, research time and so forth.

This is what causes the difficulty to escalate out of control for New Players.

"So why not free Condors?"

Free Planes = Time + Additive Time. (The more you fail the more time you are penalized)

This would lessen the problem it but really isnt much different than "Immortal Planes".

We already talked about the other factors that stem from Not having a Plane / Not being able to shoot down UFOs and you are looking at controlling and finding a "balance" using Condor Price or Time or both, and it leads to the same end result...the additional costs are unknown and random.

"Emergency Eject or Immortal Planes?"

Immortal Planes = Initial cost + Additive Time. (The more you fail the more time you are penalized)

This would lessen the problem, (Same as Free Planes). However it still runs into the problem of balance as the additional random costs are unknown. So you still have the same Game Over scenario, except it maybe takes "losing" a plane 3-4 times instead of 1-2.

[Other thoughts]

"How about a Air Craft Recovery Mission or % Chance of a Plane being Recovered or Destroyed?"

I think this is something that would be fun, but hard to say over all how it would play out. It suffers from increased Development Time and Money. Maybe someday?

[My Suggestion]

I am looking at things that can be adjusted with exact values, essentially taking the "potential loss" out of the equation.

A player may send a request to Funding Nation/s for aid in the form of a new Aircraft.

The request may be denied (Small Points Loss) or Granted (Large Points Loss).

The request "could" take X Hours/Days to Process.

For example, the player could send a request to N. America, and N. Africa, and if they both Granted the request, the player would choose one to accept (Which would count as Granted, Large Points Loss) and the other Granted request, since is was not/could not be accepted results in a Small Points Loss the same as if they request had been denied.

ANY Funding Nation that Grants a request, Grants a request that isnt accepted, or Denies a request may NOT be sent another request until after the end of the month.

The chance of accepting or denying a request could be a simple percentage or it could be based on how well they liked you, or even both.

Of course how well they liked you would be neutral across the board in the first week, however after a month there would be a larger increase with the countries near your base.

Additionally the chance for asking for a Condor would be higher than a Foxtrot to be granted if the devs felt like asking for both was acceptable.

Do I eat the loss and just buy a new plane? Do I send a request for a new plane but lose points? How many do I send out? (The more you send out the better the chance of approval, but the more points loss)

So now the penalty is modified to Initial Cost + Initial Time + Request Time + Request Penalties.

And the player is given the CHOICE.

So now the player has risk and loss to manage in a more tangible and less random way that feels less like hand holding, and the developers have variables they can better control and balance.

Edited July 7, 2013 by Mytheos

[ThunderGr]

Proposed Solution : Hit the emergency eject button on this game's attempt to take what XCOM did and make it better in respect to Air Combat, having a new found understanding of why Air Combat was trivialized in XCOM94.

I have to say something about that. While most people keep saying that the air/sub combat was "trivialized" in XCOM94, said combat in XCOM94 was better and more detailed than every attempt to produce a worthy successor. UFO series + UFO-ET + XCOM2012, all failed horribly to, even approach, the quality of the original. The various solutions included everything from removing air-combat to make it completely automatic. The original game allowed you to tail the aircraft/sub and intercept it with, up to 4, of your craft at the same time. In fact, I used that to bring down dreadnaughts in the cases I had to, before researching the long range air/sub cannons and/or the more advanced fighter/sub. Your long range missiles where limited(3) and all other weapons were forcing you to close up into the UFO's range. In fact, the whole system was well balanced and interesting, making interception something you could not take light-heartily, since the cost was high and the replacements took quite some time to arrive. So, if the developers fail to implement an interesting air-combat mechanics, I would be more than content if they could replicate exactly the TFTD interception system.

[DNK]

I've said all I have to say here:

1. Allow fuel/speed/AB management in the geoscape to allow Xeno craft to outrun or catch up to alien craft.
   
2. Allow Xeno craft to 'ditch stores' for increased fuel efficiency and speed.
   
3. Rebalance aircraft abilities, including a much reduced roll distance for all craft (but especially aliens').
   
4. Greatly increase mission rewards.
   
5. Allow for resource-limited profitable production.
   
6. Increase nation funding.
   
7. Reduce ease of losing nations to aliens.
   
8. Allow off-base landings (similar to "patrol", but you are invisible to enemies and get refueled - simulates friendly airfields you can land at throughout the world).
   

http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/6286-Balancing-Campaign-Difficulty-without-Magic-Interceptors

[TrashMan]

2) The planes are destructible, but don't take as much time or resources to build. This would allow the player some leeway in terms of losing them. Doesn't make a lot of sense that they'd be faster and cheaper to make than vehicles etc, though.

I can see a way to explain this.

Early airplanes are those ouo get from the nations and you tweak. They already exist and ar not bought. They are given to you. The cost is the price of the upgrades.

The veichles dont' exist. There is no such thing as a Hunter IIRC, so that's something the Xenonauts build from scratch.

[GizmoGomez]

I can see a way to explain this.

Early airplanes are those ouo get from the nations and you tweak. They already exist and ar not bought. They are given to you. The cost is the price of the upgrades.

The veichles dont' exist. There is no such thing as a Hunter IIRC, so that's something the Xenonauts build from scratch.

No, the Hunter is an improvement on the Daimler Ferret armored scout car. It exists in real life, just like the F16 and Mig31.

[StellarRat]

I have to say something about that. While most people keep saying that the air/sub combat was "trivialized" in XCOM94, said combat in XCOM94 was better and more detailed than every attempt to produce a worthy successor....So, if the developers fail to implement an interesting air-combat mechanics, I would be more than content if they could replicate exactly the TFTD interception system.

Hear! Hear! The Right Honorable Gentleman speaks the truth!

[RavenX]

The way I see it having some fighters survive can be easily explainable, while others shouldn't survive at all. I don't mind fighters being basically indestructible, but only certain types/kinds.

Early Starting Interceptors = Should Be a Total Loss when destroyed/shot down

Interceptors Made From Alien Materials = Should Not Be a Total Loss when destroyed/shot down

Why? Well, think of the UFO's you're shooting down. All of them except for the smallest ones can survive impact when being shot down. Even some small ones that only carry 3 Aliens can survive being shot down, thanks to the toughness of Alien Metals. Why shouldn't our mid/late game interceptors be capable of the same thing if they're made out of the same materials?

So, normal human made fighters made with conventional materials should be a total loss when shot down, while those made with more durable alien materials should be salvageable after being shot down and not be a complete loss. Meaning given enough time you can repair it while not having to manufacture a new one (which is expensive and time consuming) from scratch.

That seems like a nice middle ground on all this to me.

Edited July 8, 2013 by RavenX

[Mytheos]

I must be missing something about Air Combat on XCOM94.

For me it was use Avalanche = Auto Win but less loot as the UFOs were more damaged.

Upgrade to Lasers = (Auto Win), and UFOs take less damage so you get more loot.

UFOs Counter that.

Upgrade to Plasma = Same as before.

UFOs Counter that with craft so fast you cant catch them.

Upgrade to Avengers = Same as before.

UFOs send so many BattleShips your Avenger can shoot them all down due to repair times.

Build more Avengers = Auto Win.

And by Auto win I mean click the right range button.

Sure you had to figure out Send X number of Planes, and Tail Targets so I can attack with 2+ at the same time.

But...not saying I didnt enjoy the Air Combat in XCOM94, I did and thought it was perfectly fine and well done.

But it was mostly Trivial once you learned X + Y = Win...which can be said about a lot of things I agree.

But the time required by the average player to learn X + Y = Win is what "Makes" it trivial or not.

If the time = Less than 1 hour overall = Trivial

If the Time = 10 - 15 hours = Not trivial (Yes it becomes trivial after mastering but it isnt trivial to master.)

I dont want to use the word trivial anymore for the rest of the day now...

[StellarRat]

The way I see it having some fighters survive can be easily explainable, while others shouldn't survive at all. I don't mind fighters being basically indestructible, but only certain types/kinds.

Early Starting Interceptors = Should Be a Total Loss when destroyed/shot down

Interceptors Made From Alien Materials = Should Not Be a Total Loss when destroyed/shot down.

We had the EXACT same thought! http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/6225-Geoscape-Balance-Discussion-v19-Experimental-Build-3?p=74551&viewfull=1#post74551

[Mytheos]

The way I see it having some fighters survive can be easily explainable, while others shouldn't survive at all. I don't mind fighters being basically indestructible, but only certain types/kinds.

Early Starting Interceptors = Should Be a Total Loss when destroyed/shot down

Interceptors Made From Alien Materials = Should Not Be a Total Loss when destroyed/shot down

Why? Well, think of the UFO's you're shooting down. All of them except for the smallest ones can survive impact when being shot down. Even some small ones that only carry 3 Aliens can survive being shot down, thanks to the toughness of Alien Metals. Why shouldn't our mid/late game interceptors be capable of the same thing if they're made out of the same materials?

So, normal human made fighters made with conventional materials should be a total loss when shot down, while those made with more durable alien materials should be salvageable after being shot down and not be a complete loss. Meaning given enough time you can repair it while not having to manufacture a new one (which is expensive and time consuming) from scratch.

That seems like a nice middle ground on all this to me.

Everything you said is Valid.

However consider you arent loosing planes if you know how Air Combat works.

If you dont, you start the Game Over Spiral of Death, which starts by loosing a plane and accelerates which each loss.

Therefore Advanced UFOs being salvageable is still a valid idea...but the problem trying to be fixed is directly focused on loss of Condors. (Foxtrots?)

A player wont make it to advanced craft if they cant figure out Air Combat, therefore they dont really need to be included.

[StellarRat]

Therefore Advanced UFOs being salvageable is still a valid idea...but the problem trying to be fixed is directly focused on loss of Condors. (Foxtrots?).

Are you sure about this? I thought with the lowered prices for Condors and Migs that the most complaining was about losing the high tech craft created later in the game. As far as I'm concerned the Condors could be FREE and the Migs close to it. That wouldn't bother me in the least. All the other Level 1 weapons are free, so I have no problem with free Condors. Then the number of Level 1 and 2 AC you had would only be dependent on the number of hangers you build.

[Mytheos]

Are you sure about this? I thought with the lowered prices for Condors and Migs that the most complaining was about losing the high tech craft created later in the game. As far as I'm concerned the Condors could be FREE and the Migs close to it. That wouldn't bother me in the least. All the other Level 1 weapons are free, so I have no problem with free Condors. Then the number of Level 1 and 2 AC you had would only be dependent on the number of hangers you build.

Well the devs have said multiple times loosing a plane creates a downward death spiral, and is obviously accelerated by additional loss of craft.

And that they feel this makes the game too punishing for new players. (New Players Translated to people that havent mastered Air Combat yet)

The game as it was in 19-2 = if you know what you need for Air Combat, and have it, and use it right = No losses.

There is nothing stopping you from knowing what you need, nor does the game prevent you from getting/having what you need.

You just have to NOT loose it.

I have made it to Jan and gone up against Cruisers and so far thats the case. I dont know if that changes after that, but I'd find it weird if it became impossible after that point to not loose Air Craft if you knew the exact (best) way to do it.

As forcing people to loose advanced air craft randomly seems...yeah.

[Mytheos]

@ StellarRat

I also get everyone is TLDNR on my posts about it but...

Downward Spiral of Death =

Not Having Planes = Loss of...(Takes a deep breath)

Initial $$

Initial Time

Production Time

Potential Research Materials

Potentially More Efficient Use of Research Time

Potential Money due to NOT being able to shoot n loot X number of UFOs

Potential Funding Nation Points and Monthly Funding

Potential Soldier Equipment which leads to Potential Loss of Soldiers

And I am sure I missed a few.

Some of the "Potentials" could = 0$ to 300,000$

So yeah thats why this is so hard to figure out and balance.

Cheaper Planes/Reduced Production costs are values that impact a multitude of other variables whose values can range from "No big deal" to "Holy God!, might as well just start a new game / save load"

And it is especially tricky because some of those values arent seen/felt for a month...making it harder to understand what is exactly causing your failure. (If you dont know why you fail you cant adapt)

[Citizen844]

Neither the players nor the developers win when you dumb down the game. It sounds like Chris is warming to the idea of "never die aircraft" because it makes balance easier.

Do Not Do It, Chris.

It's a rook move and it sells out the integrity of the game. We've come all this way only to maybe have our hearts broken by this arcade feature. Just remove all air combat rather than never die planes - It's a better alternative to Xcom: Aliens in Candy Land.

[GizmoGomez]

Well, obviously the developers have a plan (that should work) with indestructible interceptors. The later game planes (corsairs and onwards) would still follow that plan.

Making the condors less money, or even free, would make it simple to order a new one and have it within 3 days (same time as the recover process would take.) Making a Mig could also be made easier to get it closer to 3 days.

[StellarRat]

Well, obviously the developers have a plan...

Hmm...well if they have a plan they're keeping as secret as the Cylons, <queue war drums> <pan to outrageously good looking Cylon agent #6>

[wcanyon]

My 2 cents:

Indestructible planes sounds just like "Balancing air combat IS HARRRRRD GUYS!" Devs need to balance instead of pulling a deus ex machina.

[Person012345]

"Balance the economy to compensate for early Air Craft Losses."

- This will result in players good at Air Combat getting more money, which will not be spent on losses, as they will not be taking any. It will be instead be spend on Weapons/Armor/Base Construction which will cause an obvious problem. You are balancing one thing and by doing so you are unbalancing another.

I'd swear there were these things called "difficulty levels". If someone is good at one part of the game and less good at another, then they absolutely should be rewarded for being good at that part of the game. Not rewarding them and not punishing people who are bad at it is essentially trying to pander to baddies and making the game casual. Losing 1 or two aircraft should not be game over, agreed. Losing plane after plane after plane absolutely should be (and indestructable interceptors for example mean that it doesn't matter how many you "lose" you'll never be punished for it directly).

[Mytheos]

I'd swear there were these things called "difficulty levels". If someone is good at one part of the game and less good at another, then they absolutely should be rewarded for being good at that part of the game. Not rewarding them and not punishing people who are bad at it is essentially trying to pander to baddies and making the game casual. Losing 1 or two aircraft should not be game over, agreed. Losing plane after plane after plane absolutely should be (and indestructable interceptors for example mean that it doesn't matter how many you "lose" you'll never be punished for it directly).

Even though I have like 3 posts saying this...

I am all for adding these things to different difficulty levels, it IS the best way to do it. I agree with you 100%.

However, that costs development time, and the devs either see something we dont, and/or they dont feel it is worth the added cost/time.

I am sure they have a MUCH better grasp on how it will play out if they go that route. (how much more time/money it will cost them)

And I have not yet seen any dev comment on this, so draw your own conclusion.

(Over in the 19-3 thread this very same conversation is happening, and both Chris and Aaron posted back to back like 2 posts below people talking about it and didnt make any comment on it)

[Citizen844]

I like the idea of difficulty levels, and I understand that development cost/time is a factor, BUT....so help me, we better not see this game go candy land easy mode in the 11th hour.

I'd swear there were these things called "difficulty levels". If someone is good at one part of the game and less good at another, then they absolutely should be rewarded for being good at that part of the game. Not rewarding them and not punishing people who are bad at it is essentially trying to pander to baddies and making the game casual. Losing 1 or two aircraft should not be game over, agreed. Losing plane after plane after plane absolutely should be (and indestructable interceptors for example mean that it doesn't matter how many you "lose" you'll never be punished for it directly).

[ThunderGr]

I'd swear there were these things called "difficulty levels". If someone is good at one part of the game and less good at another, then they absolutely should be rewarded for being good at that part of the game. Not rewarding them and not punishing people who are bad at it is essentially trying to pander to baddies and making the game casual. Losing 1 or two aircraft should not be game over, agreed. Losing plane after plane after plane absolutely should be (and indestructable interceptors for example mean that it doesn't matter how many you "lose" you'll never be punished for it directly).

Even though I have like 3 posts saying this...

Add my 5 or 6 posts saying this, as well...

I am all for adding these things to different difficulty levels, it IS the best way to do it. I agree with you 100%.

However, that costs development time, and the devs either see something we dont, and/or they dont feel it is worth the added cost/time.

I am sure they have a MUCH better grasp on how it will play out if they go that route. (how much more time/money it will cost them)

And I have not yet seen any dev comment on this, so draw your own conclusion.

(Over in the 19-3 thread this very same conversation is happening, and both Chris and Aaron posted back to back like 2 posts below people talking about it and didnt make any comment on it)

They have to process the difficulty levels, sooner or later. Since they take the effort to make this stuff modable, which costs development time, of course, they might, as well, use said modability to put the various casual/hardcore stuff throughout the difficulty levels. They will save themselves the time to find some other ways to affect difficulty and everyone will be happy. I do not mind Normal difficulty to be easy, so that people can have the satisfaction that they can beat the game in the basic mode(XCOM2012 did that and it was a smart move. The real normal mode there is the Impossible difficulty) as long as I can play the game as I think it should be played in another difficulty level.

[shabowie]

Lazy solution substituted for better balance IMO. Sorry, don't like this as a permanent feature.

I'd rather see emergency payments scaled on difficulty level to help recoup from a serious disaster like losing multiple planes, or a squad wipe where you lose the chinook and all those people. As long as you are doing a passable job defending humanity your supporting governments should be willing to step up and help out if your guys take one on the chin, more so at lower difficulties and scaled down as you go up.

Also it's already pretty clear the aircraft are being supplied by governments and you are only bearing some kind of maintenance or operational costs, I think all the planes should be scaled accordingly, even the ones you are "manufacturing" at your base. Make it clear they are in fact being built elsewhere and your onsite techs are doing final prep/testing protocols before it's ready for duty.

Edited July 12, 2013 by shabowie