Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 08/21/2018 in all areas

  1. 3 points
    Thanks Dagar. Unfortunately, it appear Charon has merely been trolling, so it doesn't matter one bit. Edit: I was under the impression that I was producing X-pedia entries for a future update of the mod. However, Charon stated he just supported production for my enjoyment. Given that fundamental rift regarding the purpose of the effort I see no reason to continue. The current state is in the attached file. It differs from what's been posted in this thread in a couple of spelling corrections to pre existing entries, errors made by me when trying to synchronize the contents of the file with the posted contents (I'm sure there are such errors), and the last set of entries where I've just replaced the erroneous descriptions with "Classified", but kept my original descriptions of core extraction. The file is "as is". I have no intention of maintaining it. It can be noted that some armor research indications are incorrect, as Charon had me match those to a possible future version, not the current one. The file is free to use when it comes to my contents, including any usage in a possible mod update. The rest of it is subject to whatever restrictions there may be. xenopedia.xml
  2. 2 points
    It's now the final day of August and about six weeks since the Kickstarter ended. Those of you who frequent the forums will be aware that I've been away for the past month getting married and going on my honeymoon, but I'm now fully recharged and back at work! The team have of course been hard at work in my absence - here's a quick update on where we are on some of the headline features we've been working on recently. Realtime Geoscape For a long time we were experimenting with a turn-based Geoscape model, but we eventually decided to move back to a realtime Geoscape before the Kickstarter because we just couldn't make the turn-based Geoscape feel as interactive and engaging as the realtime Geoscape did (even when we were giving the player exactly the same strategic choices in both systems). This has *definitely* been the right decision; the game feels far more alive now you can see UFOs flying around the world generating events and so on. Two or three months ago I breezily said this was only a few weeks of work, but unfortunately it turns out the rabbit hole went deeper than we expected - we've ended up rewriting essentially all the logic for the alien invasion and the Geoscape map setup. The basic work on the realtime Geoscape was finished a week or two into my absence, but a second pass is going to be needed before the Realtime Geoscape is considered finished. To give an example of what I mean: UFOs currently spawn on the Geoscape and fly around spawning events, and are detected when they enter the radar range of your bases. You can launch interceptors at the UFOs and shoot them down in the new air combat to create crash sites ... but there's no way to issue new orders to interceptors that are already airborne. Thus the functionality is present and the system is largely "complete", but we still need to do a pass on the gameplay aspects of the Geoscape because the player can't yet access everything they need. This is what I'll be focusing on in the short term. Air Combat I mentioned the "new air combat" in the previous post - this first iteration of this is now implemented and linked up to the strategy layer. We're working on a second iteration that improves the experience (UI improvements, combat music, weapon sfx / vfx, etc) that'll be arriving shortly, but even in its most primitive state it's pretty fun. I'll be experimenting a bit with it next week to see how it works within the context of the strategy layer, but maybe I'll post up a video or something so you can see it in action. There's been a LOT of discussion on the new air combat design in this thread. I've got some cool ideas for how we could further expand and develop things, but it's exciting just to play with the basic set of mechanics we currently have. In conjunction with the new realtime Geoscape, the strategy layer is feeling a lot more interactive than it ever has done before. AI Update Our technical director GJ has been working on a number of things over the past month, but his most recent task was to start work on the "non-racial" combat AI. This is the general AI that all combatants will use as their basic way of interacting with the battlefield - it controls how they choose what enemies to shoot at, where they move, how they choose cover, and how they choose to split their TU between different actions available to them. This is by far the most important part of the AI, because it controls whether the AI does obviously stupid things like choosing not to shoot at a Xenonaut caught in the open a few tiles away, etc. Later in development we'll be focusing on the more advanced types of "racial" AI that makes aliens behave differently depending on their racial abilities and equipment - e.g. Sebillians are likely to be more aggressive because they are tough, while Reapers would spend more time trying to stay hidden and lay ambushes, etc. But we need a solid "non-racial" tactical AI underneath before all that stuff becomes useful. GJ is now off on his own holidays for a week, but he's got about a week of work more before we have the first iteration of the new non-racial AI in the game. I do expect the first iteration of it to be fairly rough when it comes in, but it should still be an improvement over what we had in the Kickstarter combat demo and I also expect it to improve quickly throughout development and during the closed beta. Soldier Backpack & Ground Combat Inventory We're about halfway through implementing the soldier backpack on the strategy layer at the moment. Our old design was slot-based so didn't have to worry about the grid size of items, so we're now setting up the grid for the backpack and giving equipment the various properties they need to interact with it. Once that's done we'll be adding in the ground combat functionality for units swapping items to and from the backpack, and dropping / picking things up off the ground. That's everything for this update - there's quite a few smaller things we worked on over the last month too, but I can't be bothered to type any more - and I suspect I'll write another update expanding a little more on this for Kickstarter in a couple of weeks once the air combat has progressed a little more!
  3. 2 points
    Was going to post this in the air combat thread but actually here might be a better place in view of the quotes above. I think the best solution to this problem is simply to steal from the original X-Com and have UFOs sometimes fly at a slower speed. E.g. they fly at maximum speed - too fast for your interceptors to catch - when they are approaching and leaving a mission area but they slow down considerably while actually conducting their mission. So a UFO on an old-style ground attack mission (for example) would spawn in, fly at high speed directly to wherever it is going to conduct its attacks, spend some time flying around at slow speed shooting things, and then flying away at high speed again. There's a number of reasons why this would be a good idea: - It solves the problem of randomness in interception chance, since all UFOs have a period during which they are vulnerable to interception (although see the next point). - It also solves the problem in the quote from Skitso above, as missions with single direct targets (i.e. terror, base construction and base assault missions) can be approached by the UFO at high speed, too fast for the player's interceptors to catch and therefore guaranteeing the ground mission will be spawned. This might seem heavy handed - it's forcing certain missions on the player - but I think from a gameplay perspective that's a good thing (one of the single major issues of X1 is the ability to make the game less varied and interesting by playing too well!) and also does so in a plausible and consistent manner (i.e. you're not just dropping missions out of no-where like terror missions in Firaxis's XCOM; and there's a clear reason why you can't stop them with aircraft which is perfectly plausible). - As well as these points, it also ties in with the proposed air combat system well, specifically the idea of having UFOs be able to escape interception. Basically, this represents the UFO activating its high-speed engines after a period of charging, and on the geoscape UFOs which escape combat could either fly away and despawn, or relocate to another part of the world and continue with whatever mission they were conducting. - It creates scope for technology which allows the player to intercept UFOs in their high-speed mode. The example I have in mind here is an aircraft/aircraft loadout like X1's Fury interceptor, which can intercept at high speed and obliterate the UFO entirely. This would provide a mid- or late-game option for dealing with "special" missions (i.e. terror missions, base construction, etc.) without having to fight ground combat. - Finally, I also think it adds to verisimilitude. It never really made sense to me that UFOs would hurtle around at 2000+ kph when they are supposed to be scanning, abducting, conducting strafing runs and so on; having UFOs slow down while they're "in-mission" makes a lot more sense. Further, from a feedback perspective, having UFOs move in different ways will create a sense that they are actually doing something, rather than just flying around randomly, even if the mechanics are otherwise no different to X1.
  4. 1 point
    Hi Guys, Loved the first X1 and played through it vigorously and X2 is shaping up nicely. I hope to see more vertical map design that would effect game play and add a certain aesthetics to the game. X1 was very flat in its general design with only things like floors in buildings and space craft being the only vertical point. To give some examples: • Sloped hills and valleys to make the map terrain more organic and create vantage points(TFTD had a procedural map generator for this although I believe X2's maps will be hand built). Could walk down/up into new sections of the map depending on its geography and buildings. • More focus on building infiltration and making your way through to the top floors to complete objectives or kill aliens(aliens aimlessly walked around maps rather than holding points other than their ship and were very rarely found on top floors of buildings). Alternate routes could be found like climbing up ladders/stairs or drain pipes to bust through a window and take them by surprise. Gives a sense of the enemy really being in a tight spot and figuring out how to get there. Sniping alien from a window on the top floor anyone? • Varied map height design in alien bases/ships. They dont have to be multi level, but more so split in a way with larger open room stair cases to upper/lower sections that are view able from the same original level(without taking a lift to a new section/map level). This would make for vantage points for aliens to attack/ambush and better 3D like map design(I know its been discussed about multi level maps, but I really think alien bases need a preliminary level to first find where the entry of the base is, then you enter for the official mission). • Half point climbable objects like boxes(to see over walls) or climbing on cars etc. • Boardwalks and balcony's for more half way/upper level outdoor engagement that doesn't resemble a roof. Thanks guys. Hope Chris can comment.
  5. 1 point
    Yes that is true, but I have changed my game a little so airplanes are permanently destroyed if lost, no retrieving for me.
  6. 1 point
    This is why i never say somethings is impossible, because then some mother****** comes along and has to prove me wrong . Note however that you are taking a lot of damage from flying so close, which makes 2 or 3 iterations of pulling that of unlikely, and that is what a squad of f17 most likely has to make to make a successfull run. Also note that you use up a lot of antimissile by having to stay so long on the tail of the terror carrier. Assimiliated Alien Fighters would not only be able to pull this of without harm, but they would also be able to conserve more antimissile by manually dodging drones. This is the original design and how you should make the run. However with 5 bases at the start ( + radar ) i found myself too tight on money to afford the scientist/trolls to have the production for this. This is why i replaced the Fighters with basic f17. Well done !
  7. 1 point
  8. 1 point
    I have a terror carrier(with heavy fighters and troops from phase 1) on the beginning of phase 2? Is this normal?
  9. 1 point
    Well, thanks i guess. ( sorry somehow cant take screenshot when in game)
  10. 1 point
    @PALU So you are actually going to quit writing these entries? Really, why? Because Charon said he is not going to use it in the future updates ( who no one knows when will come out ) ? So what, that does not mean that other X-Div players wont use it and like it. I just dont understand, because in my mind no person would ever write all this stuff, without finding atleast some enjoyment out of it, especially considering the texts which ( to me ) indikates it has been giving some thought. A shame and unfortunate to say the least. Charon has stated several times that X-Div is finished, but that does not stop me from continuing to make maps. Since the final release I have made a few more maps and fixed all of the existing ones not made by me so they can handle the amount of content X-Div delivers ( no more drones/tanks stuck in walls and buildings, no more spawn infront of kiosk so your vehicle cant move out, unless you destroy it first, etc ). I did this and still do, well knowing it will most likely never be in the official game, it will have to be my own thing on top of X-Div. What I am trying to say is, if you really enjoy writing these entries then you should continue, but the choice is ofcourse always yours.
  11. 1 point
    Hard to do, because you don't really know you have nowhere to go until you've realized that you don't have enough data to go on, and that doesn't fit on either of the weapons, as both can be the first one, and there's no knowledge of the player's part that there won't be more of them.
  12. 1 point
    I think aliens may look "strange" but Xenonauts tried to be believable and, overall, make sense. Besides, times changed and these days you don't just put absurd things in games or movies that otherwise try to be coherent. Of course, Japanese games have their audience but I doubt it's the same audience X1 have. And, IMO, these games don't really try to be coherent in the first place. Thus, this alien concept could be modified. If it would get a proper suit, with the brain still visible but also with some equipment like small anti-grav generators, it actually could be reasonably realistic. And it could explode on death so a player wouldn't get those generators for research too early. Personally, I think everything should at least try to be believable in a game such as X2. Otherwise it would lose some of X1's appeal.
  13. 1 point
    Even in the modern world, it's common for soldiers to receive wounds that cause them to be permanently unfit for duty without being fatal. A moderate advancement in cybernetics would have them back to near 100% in only a few years. With Alien Magic Sufficiently Advanced Technology, that time can be reduced to the amount appropriate for gameplay, and costs set at whatever is balanced. Something like a broken ankle, that currently has a recovery time of a few months, can instantly incapacitate someone as a soldier for the duration of a mission. (Maybe some of them can still shoot while immobile, but even trained soldiers won't be very accurate when dealing with that amount of pain). Fallout's level of abstraction assumed that almost all bullet "hits" were grazes or deflected by armor. Based on the ease of recovery, a 'crippled' leg was barely a flesh wound.
  14. 1 point
    Mk4 is better than anything before it, yes, but generally by not being worse, i.e. it's more or less equal apart from penetration, whereas the other steps have markedly improved everything at the same time. Here damage is a bit better, while range, accuracy, and clip capacity remain unchanged. Now, if the techs were really radically different, specs would probably be all over the place, but that's not what the current figures show.
  15. 1 point
    Thanks for all the replies above. I definitely like how the mod stomps on us measly humans, not so much i missed some of the content, but its my first playtrough, and i went mostly blind, i guess that's why i dont have some of those mk3 designs aswell. I never saw an empress either, but the queen is already very impressive, and lethal if unprepared. Some of the high moments from my playtrough (or should i say "Ohh shit!!" moments): on a field mission, entering a bush fenced farm tile and facing a roborex for the first time!, and then when it blew up killing some of my team that wasn't at a safe enough distance. After that, the alien mech was impressive aswell. Sending a fighter squad to face a terror ship to down its fighter escorts, and that terror ship happens to have a very long range "gatling laser".
  16. 1 point
    Indeed. A pyramid starts at the bottom, not at the top. dunno.
  17. 1 point
    You could make a story out of it. Or give the research a codename and refer to it as such. The heart of this research is the classified being known as "Paul" AKA the alien rebel. Actually i noticed that i dummied out the advanced neutron technology, which blocks the basic antimatter technology from getting researched. Here is a fixed version ( which nobody without a new campaign can use ): researches.xml Others will have to delete the (AND)Researches.Dummy from the file. Fingers crossed that it works, but no guarantee. @Svinedrengen @PALU I checked the other anti matter technologies and they should work.
  18. 1 point
    Heyho just wanted to report a very very small typo i found so far. And also some odd wording. So this was the typo i meant: "...for out own nefarious purposes." out instead of our. Nothing major And for the odd wording: I think with "...while decreasing -5 action points." -5 Time Units (TUs) are meant. My English is not the best so maybe the -5 action points was intended that way I just hope I helped. Keep up the good work for this great mod
  19. 1 point
    A replacement version for the Titanium Anit-Missile then: The basic functionality of this system is the same as of the Anti-Missile: to keep alien craft missiles from blowing up our own craft. This system is an evolutionary improvement over the previous version, providing a longer range and just over 50% more missiles. Still, the pilots need to get their job done fairly quickly, as these missiles DO run out. Also note that these systems suffer from the same fratricide issues their predecessor do, so don't consider putting two of them on the same aircraft. Given that these systems are reasonably uncomplicated to manufacture and don't contain any hard to obtain alien resources, we effectively have these systems available in unlimited numbers.
  20. 1 point
    Can't there be a TU bank, as there is for shooting, and over-watch, a preset notch on the time units register, for this type of activity.
  21. 1 point
    @Aldodrem So points #2 and #3 are technical things that should definitely be supported by the final game. Point #1 is an interesting one I’d not considered before, but I don’t really see any reason why we couldn’t make the Xenopedia accessible from the ground combat (Esc) menu too.
  22. 1 point
    I don't think the absence of NPC objects to defend would mean that telegraphing wouldn't work. Telegraphing works fine in Slay the Spire, for example, where literally the only object to protect is yourself. Indeed (and this is should be no surprise to me; I've played quite a bit of it lately) I think Slay the Spire is a better comparison with what I'm suggesting here rather than Into the Breach. It's basic mechanic is that you know broadly what the enemy is going to do to you on its turn; and you need to make the best of the resources you have available to mitigate this and/or do as much damage as you can to your enemy. Slay the Spire trades on a card-based system rather than dice rolls - which in principle I think would work excellently here, too, but don't think it fits the tone of Xenonauts at all and so probably isn't a good idea - but I think that basic idea would transfer very well. Thinking through this some more: - As described, the player wants to have their aircraft as close to the UFO as possible before attacking, as weapons do more damage the closer they are to the UFO. If there is no information about what the UFO is going to do, the decision about whether to advance on the UFO or hold back is entirely top-level strategic: either you advance with a view to doing more damage but accepting the risk of more damage yourself; or you hold back to minimise the risk of damage to yourself but also minimising damage on the UFO/denying yourself the opportunity to attack. That, as far as I can see, is all there is to the game as outlined, which is de facto the same as the original X-Com but slower because its turn-based rather than real time. - In contrast, if attacks are telegraphed, that top-level strategic decision (advance or hold back) becomes a tactical decision (advance or hold back *with each individual aircraft*) because you're not relying on luck to determine whether or not the aircraft you choose to advance do/do not get attacked that turn (this is what I outlined above). So now, you're trying to get your aircraft as close as you can before firing while sometimes having an incentive to hold them back because they're under attack (though of course you may choose to ignore this). - Now let's consider UFO movement. As described, UFOs have a speed rating that moves them towards or away from the player's aircraft each turn. This is described as a constant for a particular kind of UFO. But I think it would be better as being variable instead. E.g. a UFO might choose to move away from the player's aircraft, or may choose to advance on them, or may choose to do neither. (It could even have the option to move towards some aircraft but away from others, reflecting the fact that the aircraft may be scattered and attacking from different angles). This would make combats more dynamic and make long-term planning less predictable - e.g. moving into mid- or close-range is risky even for aircraft not under attack this turn, as the UFO may choose to close on them the following turn meaning they'll be in a more vulnerable position than if they just hung back in the first place). As implied, then, this works well with telegraphing attacks as it means the best move with aircraft not under attack on a turn is not inherently to advance, because they might get trapped at a closer distance next turn by the UFO if it chooses to close with them. - Now let's consider weapons. As well as direct-fire weapons, UFOs could have attacks that (e.g.) hit everything within a particular range zone. These don't work if you don't telegraph attacks, because it's random whether you happen to be in the zone it is attacking or not that turn, and it would be frustrating on those turns where you are. But by telegraphing attacks, you can have weapons like these which afford some degree of area-denial on the part of the UFO, encouraging the player to move out of them (or not into them) even though that might have been best for other reasons. This could synergise with move actions, e.g. an attack at long range to encourage the aircraft closer, coupled with a closing move so that the combatants are all at close range on the next turn and therefore highly vulnerable to damage. - Then consider escorts. I think Max_Cain's suggestion of using these as area-deniers is really good and fits with what I've been writing here well. Again, their moves can be telegraphed, so you know where they will be, and you need to factor them in with regards to where you move to/where you direct your attacks. Coupled with the time limit, which would forces players away from making the best defensive choices all the time, and I think you have a system which is fairly dynamic and will require players to make some difficult choices trying to maximise their chances of downing a UFO, without actually having a great deal of complexity in terms of options or rules (indeed, the basic actions implicit in all this - move and attack - are exactly the same as what Chris suggested) and which I think would still play pretty quick. -- EDIT (Dammit, it's in my head now...): On a different point to the above: dealing with destroyed aircraft. I've not found much information about the game's economy, but I'm assuming that the issue of aircraft replacement is still going to need to be solved. In Xenonauts 1, this was dealt with by making aircraft indestructible, just having a long recovery/repair time. I think this was a good decision, gameplay wise, but still seems really silly as a concept. As a possible solution to this, rather than building/buying aircraft, the game could allow you to requisition them for free. Aircraft would still be limited by hangar space, and available pilots, so there's still a check on how much air power you can field. Then, rather than building new advanced aircraft later on, you upgrade these requisitioned aircraft with new technology instead. So aircraft would have a number of components (hardpoints, engine, armour and utility, for example) that you can customise individually. If an aircraft is shot down, the aircraft is destroyed and you lose the upgrades and the pilot. But you don't have to pay to replace the actual aircraft as well. There's a number of advantages to this idea: - It gets rid of very silly things like recovering damaged aircraft and building aircraft from scratch in three weeks. - The cost of aircraft upgrades will be much easier to scale sensibly than the cost of whole aircraft, so even though there's an economic cost to losing a plane, it doesn't have to be huge (and it scales as the game goes on, as starting planes with no equipment will cost nothing to replace; while end-game planes will cost a lot more to replace because of all the upgrades on them). - Air power advancement is more granular, as you'll upgrade aircraft piece by piece over time rather than having a big "jump" when a new aircraft comes in and air advancement can also tie into other priorities in the tech tree (e.g. investing in armour technology for soldiers is likely to also lead to armour advancement with aircraft, which creates and interaction between what you need to research for ground troops vs. what you need to research for aircraft). - You don't need to find unique roles to differentiate later aircraft from earlier ones (which caused some problems with Xenonauts 1), and can focus on making interesting modules instead. (I would imagine there being two basic frames of aircraft, a lighter one with fewer hardpoints but which is faster/more evasive and a heavier one with more hardpoints but slower/less evasive, basically the Condor and Foxtrot from X1. You don't really need any more variety than that in terms of air frame - everything else can be done with modules). - Having upgrades work on a modular level allows more flexibility in the kinds of abilities/modifiers you might add in, creates tradeoffs within module types, and allows for synergies between module types. - You don't have to faff around making space for new advanced aircraft, since all upgrading is done on existing planes instead.
  23. 1 point
    Oh dear - I knew if I started reading things I'd start having opinions, too. Never mind. I think I have similar concerns to a lot of others here: that in the end the mini-game will become redundant as the correct solution to it will be found which then just needs repeating. But I'm struggling to think how you avoid that, without making it overly complex. Some thoughts about the idea as it stands though: 1) I'd strongly encourage hit chances with set damage, over automatic hits with damage ranges. Unless you have very wide damage ranges, the system fairly predictable, exacerbating the issue of find a solution to any given combat situation. With random hit rolls, it creates scope for less expected outcomes, which might require the players to be more adaptable when things don't go as they hope. 2) I'd also consider telegraphing UFO actions on the player's turn, i.e. signalling what the UFO will do so they player can plan around it. On the one hand, you might feel that exacerbates the problem of "solving" the combats because it provides the information the player needs to make the best choice. But I'd argue that it actually creates more space for decision making by giving you clear sets of options. For example, say a UFO can make two attacks on its turn, and could either target both against the same aircraft or split attacks between two. On this turn, the UFO has decided to attack one of my aircraft twice. If I know this, I'm faced with a decision: do I retreat that aircraft to minimise the damage it will take, or do I hold/advance with it and risk the higher damage/destruction of the aircraft in exchange for a higher damage payoff beforehand. I can make that decision independent of my other aircraft (which I might choose to advance with, taking advantage of the fact that they're not under attack, or I might not so they're not trapped at close range for next turn when the UFO might then attack them instead). If I don't know what the UFO is going to do, however, I can't take actions with the aircraft independently, because there's a risk I might guess wrong. E.g. It would not be worth advancing with one aircraft and retreating with another, because if I guess wrong then the one which advances will get shot to bits, while the one at distance will loose opportunities for damage. As such, I'd be encouraged to make general decisions, i.e. retreat with all (to minimise risk), or advance with all (to maximise damage), which results in a smaller decision space and less interesting combats. Perhaps another way of explaining this is that if I don't know what the UFO is going to do on its turn, the space I am making decisions in is always the same so I will just apply the same rote strategy. If I do know, then the decision space changes from turn to turn, and while there will sometimes be a best set of actions to take within that space, you're more likely to end up with dilemmas like that outlined above. (I am, probably obviously, drawing inspiration from other games which do this, notably Into the Breach and Slay the Spire. Both games work excellently with this kind of telegraphing, and assuming there's reasonable diversity in what UFOs can do and some randomness to the outcomes, I think this would make for a more engaging minigame).
  24. 1 point
    I'm actually going to close and lock this thread now, because I feel like the intended discussion has run its course - I've made a decision on the updated mechanics and written them into the development plan and updated the master Soldier design post accordingly. Thanks to everyone that contributed to the discussion, as hearing all the different viewpoints allowed me to see all the different sides of the argument and weigh them up against each other. This is what I've decided to do: Secondary slot will be implemented as in my original post Six Belt slots will be shown, replacing the grenade / ammo quickslots. These will only arrive when we do the UI update for the ground combat. Squad view will be implemented as in my original post The backpack will return, except it'll be 3x6 instead of 4x5 The Armory panel on the right will now always be present like in Xenonauts 1 - but we'll also add some contextual filtering that makes it easier to navigate, so if you click on the Secondary slot it only shows the items that can go in the Secondary slot, etc. Soldiers will all start with the same Strength, and will not gain Strength in combat. This means that the carrying capacity for all soldiers is the same. In summary, many of my ideas were outright improvements over what we had in Xenonauts 1 and were not at all controversial - e.g. the Secondary slots and the Squad view. However on reflection I think I went too far when I decided to remove the soldier backpack, as the advantages it brought were not enough to cancel out the loss of freedom for the player. The weight system isn't perfect, but it does already punish over-equipped soldiers fairly effectively. We will therefore be returning to the X1 mechanics for the backpack and the Armory panel. The main change to X1 is that soldiers will now all have the same carry capacity. This makes life much easier when equipping soldiers as you don't have to tweak the equipment of a soldier after every mission (because they've gained Strength) and every time you equip a new loadout. It also means you don't get to escape difficult decisions about how to equip your soldiers just because your veterans have carried a heavy backpack around on a few missions and now have the Strength to carry whatever they like. It's possible this is something we'll change and improve as development continues (e.g. perhaps you could train a soldier in Strength to improve their carry capacity) but for now we'll implement the simple system where all soldiers have the same Strength and see what the feedback is on that during the closed beta.
  25. 1 point
    We fixed that by by introducing dedicated Terror UFO, which were impossible to take down for the average first-time player. For the more experienced players it represented a tough challenge to bring down one. Even if you were very skilled you will most likely loose most of your aircraft you send against a Terror UFO, eg. even a very skilled player will have to make a strategic decision if bringing down that UFO is worth the downed aircraft. The alien bases on the other hand proofed to be more difficult. The difference was that an construction UFO was actually spending time landed, where it could get intercepted. Now that part is fine and dandy, but it hardly matters what kind of UFO you have when you can just send a GC team right away. One of the solution would be to spawn more critical missions at the same time, just like the 2012 XCOM did, by giving you a 1 choice out of 3 possible events. That has its drawbacks though, as the players inability to act is not received very well. Sometimes you might be in a position where you have to take more missions, but the game won´t allow you to. My current prefered solution to this would be though that the escorts would still stay airborne when the main UFO lands, protecting it from enemy aircraft and dropship teams at the same time. You can still send your normal aircraft to take out the airborne escorts once the main UFO lands, and thuse clear a path for your dropship.