Chris Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 The ground combat balance has been changed significantly in this build. Here's the place to post your thoughts: Weapon TU costs are now % based rather than fixed; so high-TU units are no longer so overpowered Aliens have lost approximately 15 Accuracy across the board, which is a 20-25% reduction in accuracy Machineguns (and high-tech equivalents) now fire 10 rounds per burst, but only hold 2 bursts and cost 90% TU to fire. This makes them extremely potent but also more situational than before. High-level aliens have reduced TUs Explosive damage no longer falls off with range. I don't think the explosion preview for grenades is working properly any more; they cover a much wider radius than it suggests. Androns now have the same HP as Caesans, plus their extra armour. Alien weapon mitigation and suppression dialled back a bit Alien Elites now only appear very late game, on battleships and in bases (i.e. alongside Praetors) EDIT - Long (really long) post on the static vs % TU cost is here: http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/9101-TU-vs-Static-TU-firing-cost?p=100832#post100832 Please move all discussion on that issue to that thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KateMicucci Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) Some of these changes seemed a little strange, but my first impression is that they are an improvement. The LMG so far feels a lot more satisfying to use. 90% TU is probably too much though. 80% would be better. The scout car's MG should be changed to be in line with the LMG's changes. Sebbies are very inaccurate. They certainly feel like a race with poor eyesight now. Edit: Caesans can't hit anything either. I haven't had an alien hit my rookies yet even though I've been playing very poorly/aggressively. Aliens are now worse shots than Xcom rookies, no exaggeration. Alien weapon mitigation and suppression dialled back a bit Mitigation is the same as before. Edited February 25, 2014 by KateMicucci Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_walls Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Interesting. I'm excited to give it a try tonight. Maybe I can get past the terror mission I've been stuck on for 2 days now! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Myth Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Aliens are now worse shots than Xcom rookies. Of course they are. They may not be new to the battle field, but they sure are new to this world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KateMicucci Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 A side effect of the TU change is that penalties from wearing heavy armor don't matter nearly as much. Xenonauts move slower but can fire just as much. Considering how ridiculously heavy early armor is I'm not displeased with this change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrxny Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Firing costs based off a % is absolutely HORRIBLE 54 TU to file the rifle on my 1st mission. So were back to - "You cant walk and shoot in the same turn" Game... Ruined.............. Hotfix that today please, total garbage this is why I NEVER use the heavy machine gun Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asmodean Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Well I won't call it garbage but I don't like the firing as a % of TU for a few reasons. 1) I like to remember the firing cost and know how many TUs to save. Now everyone is different. 2) I don't feel like leveling up TUs is nearly as important now. I can move a little bit more, but I can't shoot more. Leveling up TUs used to be the highlight of my mission ending. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrxny Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Solider with a pistol on my first mission , 2 shots in a turn. Xenonauts ---------------> Recycling Bin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_walls Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) I haven't had an alien hit my rookies yet even though I've been playing very poorly/aggressively. Aliens are now worse shots than Xcom rookies, no exaggeration. Haven't gotten home from work yet to play, but it would seem plausible to have one experienced/elite alien on each ship larger than the smallest scouts. Basically a high ranking commander that would require some skill to take out, but doable with enough soldiers and good strategy. It's fine if you blow through the first few aliens outside, but having a stronger opponent holed up inside or near the ship would require players to be more cautious. I think the ability to build your soldiers skills over the first few missions (losing 1 to 3 guys per mission out of 8 early in the game is ok) is imperative so that by the time you start developing Predator or Sentinel armor you have some high ranking bad-ass soldiers worth putting in that expensive armor! Edited February 25, 2014 by frank_walls Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_walls Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 Solider with a pistol on my first mission , 2 shots in a turn.Xenonauts ---------------> Recycling Bin Haha. Maybe the Xenonauts program is recruiting homeless people off the streets, putting a blue jump suit on them and throwing them out of the back of a helicoptor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KateMicucci Posted February 25, 2014 Share Posted February 25, 2014 (edited) Well I won't call it garbage but I don't like the firing as a % of TU for a few reasons.1) I like to remember the firing cost and know how many TUs to save. Now everyone is different. 2) I don't feel like leveling up TUs is nearly as important now. I can move a little bit more, but I can't shoot more. Leveling up TUs used to be the highlight of my mission ending. I didn't like it when reading the patch notes but it actually makes the missions play much better. Another side effect of the change is that TU and Strength are now basically the same stat. Solider with a pistol on my first mission , 2 shots in a turn. Good. The pistol was almost better than shotguns before when a high TU soldier could practically magdump in one turn. Low TU weapons are a little worse and high TU weapons are a little better, and that's fine. Edited February 25, 2014 by KateMicucci Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legit1337 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) I don't like these changes at all. Firing TUs as a % sounds like a step backwards IMO... Machine guns having only 20 bullets per magazine is RETARDED. I mean hell, if they weren't deadly enough in the first place make the accuracy on them higher and give them a 50 TU shot cost. That way only soldiers with high strength and TUs could use them. For f**ks sake... now strength and TUs are basically the same stat, and a soldier so overweighted with gear/armor that he has 10 TUs, can fight as effectively as one unencumbered. Worst patch I have seen, ever... worse than the one taking away relations boosts from ground missions and that is saying something. Seriously, who thought this was a good idea? Such a drastic overhaul of the combat system was not needed. Just fix the TU costs of some things, play with mitigation/armor here and there. I thought we were at the stage in the game where we were deciding how to balance things? The only positive thing in the patch notes is that now the aliens are no longer ninja snipers who can headshot your guys with a pistol from across the map. Edited February 26, 2014 by legit1337 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ventuswings Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 The only positive thing in the patch notes is that now the aliens are no longer ninja snipers who can headshot your guys with a pistol from across the map. And I still maintain that if they can't do it from the start, player should not be able to pull such shots with accuracy either. I remember some other people also arguing for slight decrease in global accuracy by tweaking the formula. For f**ks sake... now strength and TUs are basically the same stat, and a soldier so overweighted with gear/armor that he has 10 TUs, can fight as effectively as one unencumbered. Wait. So for the TU %, it uses TU available at mission (after penalty) instead of overall TU for the soldier? That has got to be a bug. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mrxny Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Worst patch I have seen, ever... Seriously, who thought this was a good idea? Such a drastic overhaul of the combat system was not needed. Just fix the TU costs of some things, play with mitigation/armor here and there. I thought we were at the stage in the game where we were deciding how to balance things? . I was very excited when I loaded up the game and saw there was a new patch. I was honestly expecting the game to be complete or damn near close. It makes me question you guys judgment at this point. To make that drastic (And total crappy) change to combat at this point in development is SCARY. It shows you have no confidence - and - to me - the TU % makes the game unbearable. It reminds me of a few patches back when you made it so you couldn't move and shoot in the same turn with the tanks. Whoevers fantasy it is to have the game like that - Just drop it already...... and by the way - Auto loading rockets doesn't work anymore. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KateMicucci Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) Wait. So for the TU %, it uses TU available at mission (after penalty) instead of overall TU for the soldier? That has got to be a bug. Even if it's a bug I'd rather leave it as is. Going over the weight limit wouldn't even be an option. A soldier with a machine gun, for example, needs to spend 90% TU to fire a burst, and so he wouldn't even be able to shoot if he was even a little bit over the weight limit. I just did an Andron terror mission. The new MG's are TERRIBLE at killing Androns. 30 damage instead of 25 wouldn't be out of line. Was armor changed so that you lose it when the soldier wearing it is killed now? In V21E4 I could recycle "used" armor. After the last terror mission I've lost most of my wolf armor. Edited February 26, 2014 by KateMicucci Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legit1337 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) And I still maintain that if they can't do it from the start, player should not be able to pull such shots with accuracy either. I remember some other people also arguing for slight decrease in global accuracy by tweaking the formula. I respectfully disagree. Xenonauts troops are supposed to be the cream of the crop from earth's militaries. They really should be better shots when compared to alien civilians. Remember, the first aliens you encounter are non-coms and conscripts. The difference being that when they do hit you, your guys die instantly. Even if it's a bug I'd rather leave it as is. Going over the weight limit wouldn't even be an option. A soldier with a machine gun, for example, needs to spend 90% TU to fire a burst, and so he wouldn't even be able to shoot if he was even a little bit over the weight limit.I just did an Andron terror mission. The new MG's are TERRIBLE at killing Androns. 30 damage instead of 25 wouldn't be out of line. Was armor changed so that you lose it when the soldier wearing it is killed now? In V21E4 I could recycle "used" armor. After the last terror mission I've lost most of my wolf armor. How about just make armor weigh less instead? MGs are supposed to be terrible against androns, by that point in the game you should have at least laser weapons. "Overkill" (explosive weapons destroying all held equipment) was supposed to be taken out of the game awhile ago. If you are losing armor on dead troops it is a bug. Edited February 26, 2014 by legit1337 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max_Caine Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 Dear Developers, I'M REALLY ANGRY ABOUT A DESIGN DECISION YOU MADE. and I'm going to treat it with the same gravity IF YOU THREATENED TO PORK MY MOM. As you can tell I'M WRITING IN CAPS TO SHOW JUST HOW ANGRY I AM I DEMAND that you change everything back the way it was IMMEDIATELY without any objective critique of the mechanic in question BECAUSE IT'S SO OBVIOUS TO EVERYONE I DON'T NEED TO SAY WHY AT ALL. If you don't change back the mechanic that I think IS REALLY REALLY WRONG then I will UNINSTALL YOUR GAME. That'll teach you! P.S. You suck. P.P.S. You really suck. Yours, An Angry Young Man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KateMicucci Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 MGs are supposed to be terrible against androns, Says who? If you're supposed to have laser weapons for all of your troops by your first terror mission, good luck getting enough alloys to build them. Other ballistic weapons, except for pistols, work fine against androns. The damage on machine guns is low enough now that most of it is absorbed by armor. It's kind of strange that the MG now does less damage per shot than the AR. It wouldn't be overpowered if it did 30 damage instead of 25. "Overkill" (explosive weapons destroying all held equipment) was supposed to be taken out of the game awhile ago. If you are losing armor on dead troops it is a bug. None of them were killed by explosive weapons, or had explosives land on their corpses. The weapons they were carrying are in my stores but their armor is gone. So I've not only lost most of my experienced troops but most of my good armor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legit1337 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) @Max_Cain I'm assuming that post was directed at me. I never "demanded" anything be changed back, nor did I give my criticism without reasons why (actually read my post please, I gave plenty of reasons). Although I do think it should be changed back. Was my criticism a bit vehement? Yes, and I don't deny it. It needed to be said. I don't think the developers "suck" either or I wouldn't be here commenting on these forums. I do think they made a very poor design descision though. But you essentially just wrote an entire post to point out how "immature" you think I am, which strikes me as more then a bit immature in itself. If there was a report function, I would use it because that entire post seemed nothing more than an attempt to flame me. P.S: I am 28 years old, and have seen things in my life that someone like yourself probably couldn't even imagine. Edited February 26, 2014 by legit1337 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Max_Caine Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) There is a report function, it's in the bottom left hand corner of every post, displayed as a triangle with an exclamtion mark. That post is not directed at anyone in particular. If anyone finds a reflection of themself in that post, they should perhaps stop and consider why they see a reflection of themselves in a post parodying a certain kind of response which appears all too often when an undesired design decision or mechanic is revealed/implemented. FYI Angry Young Man is a reference to a song of the same name. Look it up on Youtube. P.S. Roy Batty saw attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion, and watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. The things I have seen and experienced are things that you could not imagine as you are not me. We are all Roy Batty - the way that we process the mundane and the mystical, the experiences each of us have, the things we see and the things we do are unique to each and every one of us. Edited February 26, 2014 by Max_Caine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_walls Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I don't hate the change to using %'s. I've done a few missions, and made it up to laser weapons. I lost a few guys along the way, and have a handful of guys leveling up nicely. The % value only increases aimed sniper fire by a couple of time units, but really effects the heavy mg. However, I do find the 10 rounds per shot balances that. If I camp my mg's and snipers and use shotguns and rifles to scout the levels go pretty well. I'm curious, does the % mean that if a guy levels up to 80 TU the cost will still be 90% of that? If that's the case then the % model doesn't seem realistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KateMicucci Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 I'm curious, does the % mean that if a guy levels up to 80 TU the cost will still be 90% of that? If that's the case then the % model doesn't seem realistic. Yes. It was the same in the original game. The TU's represent only your soldier's speed now. I personally don't care whether things are "realistic" in this game as long as they're balanced, but the TU% system is more realistic. A major is no longer able to somehow make his machinegun fire twice as fast as a private's. The burst function on a soldier's AR no longer becomes inoperable because he's wearing heavy armor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frank_walls Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 By realistic I meant that a veteran soldier should be able to fire a weapon and have enough TU left to move or do some other smaller action. For example, someone who has been in enough combat should be able to shoot a heavy mg for suppression and then move or even throw a grenade. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
legit1337 Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) There is a report function, it's in the bottom left hand corner of every post, displayed as a triangle with an exclamtion mark.That post is not directed at anyone in particular. If anyone finds a reflection of themself in that post, they should perhaps stop and consider why they see a reflection of themselves in a post parodying a certain kind of response which appears all too often when an undesired design decision or mechanic is revealed/implemented. FYI Angry Young Man is a reference to a song of the same name. Look it up on Youtube. P.S. Roy Batty saw attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion, and watched c-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. The things I have seen and experienced are things that you could not imagine as you are not me. We are all Roy Batty - the way that we process the mundane and the mystical, the experiences each of us have, the things we see and the things we do are unique to each and every one of us. I have no idea why you interpret open criticism of design decisions that way... but ok, each to his own I guess. Yes. It was the same in the original game. The TU's represent only your soldier's speed now.I personally don't care whether things are "realistic" in this game as long as they're balanced, but the TU% system is more realistic. A major is no longer able to somehow make his machinegun fire twice as fast as a private's. The burst function on a soldier's AR no longer becomes inoperable because he's wearing heavy armor. TUs represented "speed" under the old system too. A faster soldier would be able to do more actions in a single turn then a slow soldier. A major may have a lot of experience fighting, and thus can fire his machinegun more efficiently (and thus more per turn) then a private could. On your other example, a private may be too weighed down in armor and fatigued to take an aimed or burst shot (with any kind of accuracy). The realism argument cuts both ways. Personally I think that the recent patch should be reverted. When my guys level up TUs I expect them to be able to do more per turn, not the same amount because of TU percentages. Also it is easier to keep track of what troops can do what, when I know that a burst shot always costs 40TUs, and a snap shot always costs 20. Also, the changes blurs the line majorly between the strength and TU stats, and devalues the TU stat to a large degree. There is also the fact that a soldier with a small number of TUs due to armor/gear weight should have nowhere near the same kind of combat effectiveness that an unencumbered soldier should have. Under the current system he is just as effective a fighter. The OG had percentages for actions and I thought that it was one of the dumbest mechanics about the game. The fact that machine guns now have 20 round magazines is extremely ridiculous. They are supposed to be squad support and suppression weapons designed for sustained fire. They should have 50 rounds at LEAST... IRL they would have 100-200. Edited February 26, 2014 by legit1337 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DNK Posted February 26, 2014 Share Posted February 26, 2014 (edited) With all due respect (and it seems many here aren't giving that), I disagree with the weapon firing TU% change. It's a major part of leveling up soldiers to have that. I realize that TOG had it as a percentage, and that was one thing I was EXTREMELY happy to see changed in Xenonauts. Not only is it a lot easier to remember how much TU to save, but it actually makes leveling up TUs have a point. I see TUs as a sort of overall soldier skill/speed. It's not just running speed (represented by distance he can go in a turn), but also firing speed. A more veteran soldier should be able to shoot with the same accuracy faster - he lines up his shots faster, handles recoil better, etc. That was reflected by shots costing a decreasing percentage of TUs as a soldier's TU score went up with missions. Now, I might suggest it'd be better if TUs for shots was related proportional to ACCURACY in addition to being a percentage of TUs. So, the semi-accurate single shot is whatever, 40% TUs for someone with 50 accuracy. But someone with 70 accuracy has it be only 29% TUs (50/70 x base). Or you could adjust that so it's something like, where X is accuracy: Option 2: (( (50/X-1) / 2 ) + 1)*TU% So the two options for a base 40% TU shot would be: ACC - X/50 - Option 2 40 - 50% - 45% 50 - 50% - 40% 60 - 33% - 37% 70 - 29% - 34% 80 - 25% - 33% 90 - 22% - 31% This way we still get progression, but it's disconnected from TU progression, which effectively now only stands for agility/speed. Accuracy not only improves accuracy but decreases shot time (and I like the second, half option), which seems to me realistic. The second option prevents it from getting too overpowered, and is basically a 50% compromise with the current system (no leveling up of shot speed) and the old system (shot speed levels up 100% with TU increases). At least now it's related to the actually relevant stat of accuracy instead of the generic TU stat. P.S. I like having more limited magazines with higher shot counts for burst on MGs. I modded that into my own game already. I also mod all magazines much lower so ammo management is an actual issue. In reality, it is, and in reality firefights last a lot longer than in game and take up a lot more shots. We have to abstract some of that to prevent the game from getting tedious (I've tried reducing accuracy to more real-world firefight levels and it takes an eternity), so reducing mag capacities and just imagining that when we shoot a bullet, it's actually like 3 virtual bullets, makes sense to me. Edited February 26, 2014 by DNK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.