V19 Experimental Build 3 available!

[Mytheos]

We came to the conclusion to keep it, but also to reduce its impact on the game and to introduce the auto-resolve system to let players skip it if they find it tedious.

And nothing is set in stone, of course not, but the fact that we have spent a fair chunk of our limited programmer time to implement the new system should suggest to you we are quite invested in making it work one way or another; if that means tweaks and small changes down the line, then those are things we will do.

It seems like there are three groups out there now...

+I like Air Combat Challenging and Memorable (19-2 style)

+I like Air Combat Trivial (Right Plane/s + Weapons vs UFO Type/s = Win, essentially original XCOM style)

+I want Air Combat Trivial, and because it's trivial I dont care to even mess with it, add Auto Resolve.

It would by that seem to make most sense to keep it challenging like the first group wants, and if you find it too hard/dont like it, just use Auto Resolve.

Is it worthwhile to even bother to strike a balance of challenge? Its going to be either too hard/bothersome for the majority or some degree of Trivial.

And Trivial means, I played with it for 20mins, its cute, but yeah Auto Resolve...which seems like wasted time spent on trying to find a Goldilocks Balance (Just Right) to please everyone.

Again Auto Resolve is simply, send the right plane/s with the right weapons vs the right type of UFO and win. (Best Config being Win and take little/no damage, a lesser combination might be Win + More damage)

I dont see the point in using some complex formula to resolve it, as the people that use it dont really care in the first place, and if it doesnt have an obvious result (They know they will win, with minimal/no damage, if they have the correctly equipped planes) they are going to just save/load until they win the Random Number Generator Game.

No one wants to play the RNG save/load game, especially people finding AC tedious enough to use an Auto Resolve feature.

[GizmoGomez]

I agree; the auto-resolve should be incredibly simple; that is to say, no AI vs AI gameplay, just simple rock-paper-scissors style this will beat this, that will beat that, etc. There should be only a few different outcomes, and each should happen that way every time.

For example:

a) you win, take no damage, the enemy is completely destroyed.

b) you win, take some damage, the enemy is completely destroyed

c) you win, take heavy damage, the enemy is completely destroyed (planes significantly below the "average strength" (condors vs a battleship) would be destroyed).

d) it's a tie, you lose one or two of your planes (depends on squadron strength), the aliens lose one or two of their craft, both parties leave the area

e) you lose, the UFO(s) destroy your planes.

Just give every plane and every weapon a strength rating (condor has a +10, sidewinders have a +3 each, cannon has a +4, making one beginning condor a +20, whereas a light scout is a +25). Add up the strength ratings, and depending on the difference between them, that's how you decide which of the five outcomes to pick. If you beat them by 10 (two condors (40) vs a light scout (20) would be +18) you get option A. If you're between +9 and +5 you get option B. +4 and +1 option C. +0 exactly you get option D. -3 and lower get you option E.

(Obviously these are just numbers pulled out of thin air for the sake of examples, and thus aren't balanced, but you see what I'm trying to get at.)

So, Strength Rating:

There are two types of bonuses:

-Aircraft Bonus(s)

-Weapon Bonus(s)

Aircraft Bonus(s):

-The aircraft itself (condor, foxtrot, corsair, etc) has a set bonus.

-The fuel level and HP both have an affect on this bonus. For example, you have a corsair (with a bonus of 50), but it has low fuel. This would cause the aircraft bonus to be 42 instead.

Weapon Bonus(s):

-Each missile/torpedo has a set bonus. If the missile has been used in a previous engagement, then it doesn't count (since it's not even there.)

-Each cannon has a set bonus, lowered by a bit if you are low on ammo (under 25%? under 10%? How often does ammo get used up?)

Perhaps some weapons should be deemed ineffective, and thus their bonuses don't count, against some targets. For example, if there's a target that can dodge torpedoes easily, and consistently, a Mig with four torpedoes wouldn't have any weapon bonuses, and thus lose easily.

[Anon_Spartan]

How can people be upset with the air combat mini game? It takes only a minute at most to play. It only contributes to immersion. What else would the commander of the Xenonauts be doing? Compared to X Com's three tactics of long, medium, and close range combat, I found the mini game to be a breath of relief. When i get faster planes, i look forward to using tactics like having a future MiG with all heavy ordinance break off from the group to sneak up on the target UFO. The same goes for losing planes. Its lost. Its no big deal, you can get a new one in three days and $50000. Free recovery should only be available on beginner, if at all.

I honestly feel that a lot of the people pushing these changes are upset there is no way to win Xenonauts in 100% condition. I remember people complaining that sometimes you couldn't get an intact Scout until October and that you should be given your first ufo of every type undamaged. That's silly. Yes...sometimes you get dealt a shitty hand and either you play the best you can or give up. Not every game of Xenonauts should be winnable. That's the difference between a scripted game and one based on random chance. Sometimes I have a great starting month, sometimes I get Terror Missions I can't even reach. Then I get yelled at, hopefully funded, and move on to fight aliens another day.

[kefeinzel]

I really hope that that will be toggleable, even playing on easy I don't want auto resolve aircombat :I

[meshuggahs]

How can people be upset with the air combat mini game?

How can people be upset if/when an auto resolve is added as an OPTION?

I couldn't care less for an rts-mini-pause-game if I tired to. You say immersive, I say repetitive and boring

[Mytheos]

How can people be upset with the air combat mini game? It takes only a minute at most to play. It only contributes to immersion. What else would the commander of the Xenonauts be doing? Compared to X Com's three tactics of long, medium, and close range combat, I found the mini game to be a breath of relief. When i get faster planes, i look forward to using tactics like having a future MiG with all heavy ordinance break off from the group to sneak up on the target UFO. The same goes for losing planes. Its lost. Its no big deal, you can get a new one in three days and $50000. Free recovery should only be available on beginner, if at all.

I honestly feel that a lot of the people pushing these changes are upset there is no way to win Xenonauts in 100% condition. I remember people complaining that sometimes you couldn't get an intact Scout until October and that you should be given your first ufo of every type undamaged. That's silly. Yes...sometimes you get dealt a shitty hand and either you play the best you can or give up. Not every game of Xenonauts should be winnable. That's the difference between a scripted game and one based on random chance. Sometimes I have a great starting month, sometimes I get Terror Missions I can't even reach. Then I get yelled at, hopefully funded, and move on to fight aliens another day.

The "I honestly feel that a lot of the people pushing these changes are upset there is no way to win Xenonauts in 100% condition"

There is a way to win Air Combat in 100% condition every time.

And I agree with what you are saying, amen.

But the overall is that the devs are trying to set a bar that says you must give this much of a damn to learn how to play this correctly in order to really play this game at all.

The higher it's set to a degree, the happier the Hardcores are, and the increased chance this game goes on to become something legendary...

However the lower it is set to a degree, the more money they make but the more forgettable and generic the game is...

This is the struggle of the entire gaming industry to try to find a perfect balance...and its easy to tell what companies/games choose what path...as a perfect balance of happy casual and hardcores is something perhaps impossible and if not, rarely seen.

[StellarRat]

This is the struggle of the entire gaming industry to try to find a perfect balance...and its easy to tell what companies/games choose what path...as a perfect balance of happy casual and hardcores is something perhaps impossible and if not, rarely seen.

True, but I think with Xenonauts we can probably err on the side of complexity as I doubt many young kids and teenyboppers are playing turn based strategy games. They only care about shooters, RTS and WOW type stuff.

[Anon_Spartan]

Then make the auto-resolve feature a feature only for easy mode. I'm sure that most of the loudest voices on this forum will never play beyond that difficulty, since losing isn't fun for them.

Maybe I should add Dwarf Fortress player to my signature. It might make my views easier to understand.

[lightgemini]

Theres nothing wrong with auto resolve in any dificult level. It needs to give WORSE results than fighting the combat manually by a experienced player, so it doenst make that part redundant and keeps an incentive to play the aircombat on the most dangerous encounters, and leave it to auto-mode on the most easy ones so the player atention keeps focus were it is more needed.

And for the excuses of having to simulate player skill and bla bla on the topic of adding the "emergency disengage" idea, thats just meaningless. It can be resolved in many ways and still keep incentive on doing it manually as above explained. Just add a 50% chance of "disengage & retrieval" for any change in health. Tweak it more or less so the plane escapes well before any critical damage, making it deal less damage to UFOS as it would do if a player was manually controlling the right moment to disengage.

So again you have it done, a bit worse results in auto resolve that means nothing when entering a combat that you will surely win, wich gives a reason to manually play it when the result its not so obvious and your experience/skill is really needed there. I would even go more "hardcore" and let the UFOS downed in auto resolve always be critically damaged as even more incentive for manual air combat.

[Mytheos]

True, but I think with Xenonauts we can probably err on the side of complexity as I doubt many young kids and teenyboppers are playing turn based strategy games. They only care about shooters, RTS and WOW type stuff.

Yeah I agree, but you have to admit many games that are blatantly obvious to be geared toward people willing to commit to it, somehow end up turning into...XCOM2012.

I really dont get it myself, and other industries dont suffer from this, or at least as badly.

Food Industry - You want pizza? We have Pizza, its AMAZING pizza. You dont? Oh well when you want some awesome pizza let us know.

Gaming Industry - You want Pizza, we have pizza, You dont? Well...we have Pizza with Steak, Chocolate Ice Cream, Chicken Wings, Pasta, Tacos, Sweet N Sour Chicken, Curry, Hotdogs n Hamburgers!!! So no matter what you want we can take care of you!

Gaming Industry - Why are our customers so angry and our profits suffering? It must be because people are stealing our recipes and making them at home!!!!

So much /facepalm.

[Mytheos]

Then make the auto-resolve feature a feature only for easy mode. I'm sure that most of the loudest voices on this forum will never play beyond that difficulty, since losing isn't fun for them.

Maybe I should add Dwarf Fortress player to my signature. It might make my views easier to understand.

Well Auto-Resolve would just be a button, you could use it or not. So it shouldnt matter to much to be in every difficulty (Less development time that way)

[StellarRat]

Yeah I agree, but you have to admit many games that are blatantly obvious to be geared toward people willing to commit to it, somehow end up turning into...XCOM2012.

I really dont get it myself, and other industries dont suffer from this, or at least as badly.

Food Industry - You want pizza? We have Pizza, its AMAZING pizza. You dont? Oh well when you want some awesome pizza let us know.

Gaming Industry - You want Pizza, we have pizza, You dont? Well...we have Pizza with Steak, Chocolate Ice Cream, Chicken Wings, Pasta, Tacos, Sweet N Sour Chicken, Curry, Hotdogs n Hamburgers!!! So no matter what you want we can take care of you!

Gaming Industry - Why are our customers so angry and our profits suffering? It must be because people are stealing our recipes and making them at home!!!!

So much /facepalm.

It's really a question of your budget and how much money you're trying to make. The gaming industry has gone the way of the movie industry. The movies are dumbed down, repeated and super spiffed up in the graphics and such to appeal the largest possible audience because they want to make as money as possible. The gaming industry has such big budgets, so high of profit expectations (specially since many of the companies are now publically traded), and such high risk for huge losses that the big players have dumbed down their games, repeat the same themes over and over, and are unwilling to take risks on original products. The business is totally different than when the original XCom came out. I point to SimCity 5 and Skyrim for examples of what can happen in the current gaming industry. One is a total disaster that was the worst possible example of yielding to the profit pressures and the other is an amazing game.

That leaves a lot of little niche markets where companies like GoldHawk and Battlefront can sell games that appeal to a small audience by having exactly what they want, content wise. GoldHawk can't compete on graphics and sound like the huge companies can because the budgets and staff required are HUGE. So, IHMO, dumbing down Xenonauts or simplfiying things to try to appeal to more people is probably counterproductive to a certain extent. Now, I can certainly understand not doing everything perfectly or having to cut some corners because of budget/time/etc... I'm hoping that if Xenonauts sells well enough, Chris et al...will be willing to do Xenonauts II with part of the effort being to fix some of loose ends and perhaps getting a better graphics engine that can handle some of the things that are hampering this game.

Edited July 9, 2013 by StellarRat

[DNK]

This is the struggle of the entire gaming industry to try to find a perfect balance...and its easy to tell what companies/games choose what path...as a perfect balance of happy casual and hardcores is something perhaps impossible and if not, rarely seen.

Difficulty levels allow you to pander to both groups. Basically, make "easy" a "learn as you play" mode with gamey/forgiving features on as default. "Normal" is more of a casual gamer mode, with things like auto-resolve and a fairly easy invasion progression. "Hard" is where the veteran gamers who love a challenge go - things like "invincible interceptors", "auto resolve" and "emergency disengage" are off by default, plus the campaign progresses faster and is less forgiving. Then there's "Nightmare" mode, which is nigh impossible and only for the most hardcore gamers.

As much as I really dislike "magic interceptors", I'm fine with it being an option in easy mode. My main concern is that it worms its way into the framework of all difficulty modes as a necessary camapign balancing function that's hard for the player to eschew without being put at a severe disadvantage.

But auto-resolve is something I'm totally for on all but the highest difficulty setting.

Mostly, these sorts of options need to be toggleable on the campaign start screen.

Games are one of those places you can have your cake and eat it too.

[Mytheos]

Difficulty levels allow you to pander to both groups. Basically, make "easy" a "learn as you play" mode with gamey/forgiving features on as default. "Normal" is more of a casual gamer mode, with things like auto-resolve and a fairly easy invasion progression. "Hard" is where the veteran gamers who love a challenge go - things like "invincible interceptors", "auto resolve" and "emergency disengage" are off by default, plus the campaign progresses faster and is less forgiving. Then there's "Nightmare" mode, which is nigh impossible and only for the most hardcore gamers.

As much as I really dislike "magic interceptors", I'm fine with it being an option in easy mode. My main concern is that it worms its way into the framework of all difficulty modes as a necessary camapign balancing function that's hard for the player to eschew without being put at a severe disadvantage.

But auto-resolve is something I'm totally for on all but the highest difficulty setting.

Mostly, these sorts of options need to be toggleable on the campaign start screen.

Games are one of those places you can have your cake and eat it too.

I never said any of this couldnt be done. And yes it is a better way to do it, no one is saying otherwise.

But adding different features to different difficulty levels requires development time.

At least I havent seen the devs comment on any of the "add this feature to certain difficulty levels" post, so I am assuming they dont want to do it.

I mean really why even have the Immortal Planes debate in the first place...if they were willing/felt it was worth it to just add different features to different difficulties?

If you are playing on insane and think the Air Combat is too hard...Suck Less?

[Anon_Spartan]

Making a feature available for different difficulty levels is not hard. I'm certain each level of play controls the number of aliens spawning. And the devs already have it for Iron Man mode so players on high difficulties can't savescum. And it will most likely affect AI decisions later. Otherwise, what would be the point of different difficulty levels? This isn't old Com where you played on easy no matter what you chose.

As for air combat being repetitive, I don't see the validity of the excuse. I've been playtesting these demos for over a year and everything gets repetitive. It's the nature of the game. I can see your complaint early in the game where air combat is just 'fire one missle...then fire second a few moments later so you catch the scout after it rolls'. But later on when you have to take out escorts and still make sure you have enough of a payload left to take out the main ship, it takes much more skill as you must use strategy. Furthermore, I assume that damage dealt will affect the ship's condition for getting loot, so you have to learn how much is overpowering to a certain class of ship, and what is the bare minimum needed to take it out. These tactical decisions make air combat crucial, even if you think it's 'boring.'

I'd rather see the devs add new features to air combat instead of wasting time making it skipable.

[Tryphikik]

I honestly feel that a lot of the people pushing these changes are upset there is no way to win Xenonauts in 100% condition.

No... It blows my mind that people would rather make every excuse that there is for why people want air combat changed. From they are all casuals, to they are bad at air combat, to people want to win in 100% condition, etc...

It's like people would rather bury their head in the sand or stick their fingers in their ears screaming "lalalala" rather than simply accept some people just -DON'T LIKE- the air combat... I don't even get why that is hard to believe or accept, is it so unbelievable that people are playing this strategy/tactics game because they want to play strategy/tactics and not a flight minigame? I don't get it, it's not that complicated to understand but people just seem to not want to accept that some people don't find the air combat fun(completely irrelevant of how hard it is).

[Aaron]

The auto-resolve will be a purely mathematical beast, yeah - just click auto-resolve and get a near instantaneous result. And in case it wasn't clear somehow the current air combat will not be replaced by auto-resolve, and the auto-resolve function will be available on all difficulty levels.

[Chris]

There will also (eventually, it's not in yet) be an option to turn destructibility back on, if people want to mod it back in and rebalance the game accordingly.

[raziel1981]

that's good news Chris. Thanks for allowing this

[Gordon]

Huzzah

[Mytheos]

There will also (eventually, it's not in yet) be an option to turn destructibility back on, if people want to mod it back in and rebalance the game accordingly.

What would need to be rebalanced?

Its just a case of, you lost a plane, or you didnt loose the plane and now have to wait 3 days or dismiss it and build a new one?

Or am I missing something?

Only thing I can assume is you are taking $$ out of the economy that you had left in to compensate for AC losses?

[Mytheos]

It's really a question of your budget and how much money you're trying to make. The gaming industry has gone the way of the movie industry. The movies are dumbed down, repeated and super spiffed up in the graphics and such to appeal the largest possible audience because they want to make as money as possible. The gaming industry has such big budgets, so high of profit expectations (specially since many of the companies are now publically traded), and such high risk for huge losses that the big players have dumbed down their games, repeat the same themes over and over, and are unwilling to take risks on original products. The business is totally different than when the original XCom came out. I point to SimCity 5 and Skyrim for examples of what can happen in the current gaming industry. One is a total disaster that was the worst possible example of yielding to the profit pressures and the other is an amazing game.

That leaves a lot of little niche markets where companies like GoldHawk and Battlefront can sell games that appeal to a small audience by having exactly what they want, content wise. GoldHawk can't compete on graphics and sound like the huge companies can because the budgets and staff required are HUGE. So, IHMO, dumbing down Xenonauts or simplfiying things to try to appeal to more people is probably counterproductive to a certain extent. Now, I can certainly understand not doing everything perfectly or having to cut some corners because of budget/time/etc... I'm hoping that if Xenonauts sells well enough, Chris et al...will be willing to do Xenonauts II with part of the effort being to fix some of loose ends and perhaps getting a better graphics engine that can handle some of the things that are hampering this game.

I agree.

I like detailed movies with good plots and stories. I also like mindless movies that involve Giant Monsters fighting Giant Robots.

But you can tell certain movies are made for people that want a mindless experience and some arent. There is a trend to add more mindless to movies overall, I grant you that.

But certain titles understand they WILL fail if they drop the story and focus on mindless, because they are completely geared toward a serious audience looking for a deep and meaningful experience.

But the gaming industry doesnt get that for whatever reason...they continue to expand their accessibility no matter what the title until many times they fail.

Les Misérables is a movie and although I'd never watch it, I have a sneaking suspicion they arent selling out, because it is braindead obvious who is going to go see that movie, and who isnt.

However if they made a Les Misérables the video game, it would surely include Giant Aliens Fighting Giant robots...because thats what the industry does.

Look at XCOM2012 I am sure it made money, but where is it now? Forgotten, where will it be in 5 years? Forgotten.

What if now they had made it more true to it's roots?

Well less initial money, but its popularity would spread, they would see more stable sales, increased DLC profit and more money from a Sequel...you start seeing a community grow around it, more mods, fan art, fan stories...maybe it would even grow into a movie franchise.

Maybe 15 years later people would still care, and maybe your company name meant "I'm going to automatically buy whatever you make" instead of the taste of vomit you get in your mouth when you hear "EA / Electronic Arts"

But companies want a huge spike off the bat and then after that who cares...granted with intrest rates, taxes and so forth you can understand why that is...

[Chris]

Aircraft can and will be relatively more expensive compared to smaller things like weapons and armour if they can't be permanently destroyed.

If you have destructible interceptors and one costs the same as most of the armour and weapons of your main combat team, you're in SERIOUS trouble if you lose one - and the air combat isn't meant to be a more important part of the game than the ground combat. But if you don't have interceptors cost that much, that causes a whole other set of issues which are equally problematic.

Also, remember that if you have a soldier killed you only lose the soldier - you don't usually lose the expensive weapons or armour you built for them (unless you actually also lose the mission). Buying a new soldier is pretty cheap, even if he isn't quite as good as before, so it's not a big financial loss. Losing a plane is.

[Betuor]

Aircraft can and will be relatively more expensive compared to smaller things like weapons and armour if they can't be permanently destroyed.

If you have destructible interceptors and one costs the same as most of the armour and weapons of your main combat team, you're in SERIOUS trouble if you lose one - and the air combat isn't meant to be a more important part of the game than the ground combat. But if you don't have interceptors cost that much, that causes a whole other set of issues which are equally problematic.

Also, remember that if you have a soldier killed you only lose the soldier - you don't usually lose the expensive weapons or armour you built for them (unless you actually also lose the mission). Buying a new soldier is pretty cheap, even if he isn't quite as good as before, so it's not a big financial loss. Losing a plane is.

I like that idea better. It's like an optional easy mode button but it's not completely easier. On that note, what are also some of the plans for difficulty levels including this feature? Will the higher difficulty have a lower % chance? Also, can the planes still take so much damage they get destroyed?

[Tryphikik]

Look at XCOM2012 I am sure it made money, but where is it now? Forgotten, where will it be in 5 years? Forgotten.

What if now they had made it more true to it's roots?

You are honestly drunk off your own bias. If they made XCOM:EU more true to its roots it wouldn't have been nearly as popular and would be much more forgotten than it is now. No offense to Xenonauts taking that route, it's a fun route that plays right into what many of us enjoy... but it isn't the glorious route to stardom. Xenonauts won't be forgotten, because for most of the industry it will never even be known to forget. I mean that in the nicest way possible as someone who loves this game, but that is the truth this is the kind of game close to the original xcom that is a labor of love, not a labor of riches and making history.

Xcom: Eu is and will be remembered by the industry. The reason being is that it proved that you can still do AAA Turn-Based Tactics in a way that will appeal to a larger audience and have commercial success. XCOM: EU is still hovering around the top 50 sellers on steam at 40 dollars 10 months after release in a world where games are forgotten a month after release and the only games that stay there are those massively on sale or the cream of the crop in terms of popularity, this as a turn-based tactics game is nearly unheard of. This when most of the industry had forsaken and given up on TBT's being successful on that level. There will inevitably be more turn-based games trying to replicate that formula. So in that regard its impact will be felt for sometime.

If you didn't enjoy it and thought it blew, that is fine and understandable if you wanted something true to the original. But if you think they were unsuccessful and would have been more successful if they tried to replicate the original, then you are delusional and extremely out of touch with todays gamers.