Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 06/21/2018 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    It seems to me that the imposition of one primary (weapon) slot and one secondary (weapon/non weapon) slot is intended to provoke a crisis of choice. The player is offered many different choices but with only one slot free, the player must agonise over which choice to make. The issue I see with doing it like this is that XCOM already did this, and instead of provoking a crisis of choice, it provoked a conformity of choice. When there are many options but few slots to put those options in, the player will optimise then mass-replicate the most optimal choices available from the list. It didn't take players in XCOM and XCOM 2 very long to thresh the chaff from the wheat and shortlist what gear was objectively the best to carry into battle, meaning that gear that was deemed sub-optimal was never (or very rarely) carried into battle, and may as well as never had the time and development resources poured into it in the first place. This is why in Long War and Long War 2 the number of starting slots are doubled and sometimes trebled. Long War has a larger equipment list, and without the slots freed for players to take "must haves", they will never experiment with the "might haves". Furthermore, given the proposed skill system in the solider thread, the question of whether a solider would take game-breaking combos of weapons/gear becomes moot once a player starts putting points into a specific skill area. Once a solider starts to have skills put into... take the example from the OP - sniper rifles, the player will naturally optimise that solider towards sniper rifles and very little else, especially if the skill system encourages specialisation against generalisation. If it's notably more expensive to have a solider skill up in both sniper rifles and shotguns than to specialise only sniper rifles, you guide the player towards using specific "builds" without brute-forcing the situation in the inventory screen.
  2. 3 points
    You can read the basic description of the new soldier inventory system in this thread: https://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/index.php?/topic/19462-xenonauts-2-soldiers/ I think this is a topic that needs to be discussed in more detail. The purpose of this thread is to explain the reasons why we have made these changes, so players who are concerned about the changes can make suggestions for how the new inventory system could be changed or improved to bring back missing functionality from Xenonauts 1. Honestly, I'm happy to update the inventory design if we can bring back some of the freedom from the X1 system into the current system - but I'd also be happy to bring back the X1 system if people were able to suggest appropriate improvements to that. Ultimately, we all want to produce the best possible game here! So let's start by talking about the inventory system from Xenonauts 1, and what was good and bad about it: GOOD - it gives you the freedom to load your soldiers with all sorts of weird and wonderful combinations of equipment. This opens up various tactical possibilities that don't exist in more streamlined games like XCOM (soldiers carrying gear for other soldiers, etc.) NEUTRAL - soldiers could carry more than one "primary" weapon into combat, allowing a sniper to instantly become a close-combat specialist just by switching to a shotgun. This is listed as neutral because I'm actually OK with this ability provided it is balanced better than it was in X1 (more on this below). BAD - we balanced the number of items a soldier could carry using weight (KG) vs. the soldier strength, which led to a lot of "realistic weight" issues and some fiddly micromanaging of the soldier equipment every time their Strength went up. BAD - any item can go anywhere, so you need a huge Armory panel on the Soldier Equip screen that shows every possible item you might want. The new system has contextual filtering, so clicking on a Belt slot shows only ammo and grenades etc. This makes it much easier to find the items you need. TERRIBLE - you couldn't see the secondary items a soldier was equipped with in a combat mission unless you had the inventory panel open, so on the battlefield it was hard to easily find the soldier with the medikit / stun baton / etc when you needed them. TERRIBLE - using a secondary item was a fiddly process that involved opening the inventory, dragging the item into your primary, checking the TU cost of doing so, then closing the inventory and using it. After you've used it, you have to go through the entire process again to re-equip your primary weapon. The proposed X2 system deals with the negative parts of the X1 system, but I do understand that it also takes away the one big advantage of the Xenonauts 1 system - the freedom to equip your soldier the way you choose. I understand people don't want to lose that freedom, so I'd be very happy if we can find a hybrid system that deals with the usability and balance issues of the X1 system but retains some of all of that extra freedom. Here's some specific talking points that I want to highlight in this discussion. Secondary Slot: I think even the biggest supporter of the old X1 inventory system would agree that it's clunky to use. To address that in Xenonauts-2 we've added the Secondary slot, which will be displayed in the ground combat UI (placeholder concept seen below). This secondary slot isn't necessarily tied to the rest of the changes in the X2 inventory system; it could be integrated into the Xenonauts 1 inventory system too. It's basically a "holster" slot that is too small to fit a full-size weapon in it. If a backpack exists you could drag stuff from the backpack into this slot in the same way as you can for the Primary slot. The purpose of this secondary slot is to remove the time wasted cyling through soldiers to find the one that has the specific secondary item you're looking for, and also to make it much quicker to access that item when you do find it. I think we'll probably allow the soldier to use the item in their secondary slot without a TU penalty because that's the easiest and cleanest way to do it. To me, this is a straightforward upgrade over what we had in Xenonauts 1. It doesn't remove any complexity, it just makes secondary items much easier to view and use. Does anyone feel differently? Squad View: The "Soldier Equip" screen now has two levels. It has a top-level screen that allows you re-arrange soldiers in the dropship and swap out soldiers into a slot (new soldiers inherit the loadout of the soldier they replaced), and a lower-level screen that allows you to customise the equipment of an individual soldier. The UI is placeholder but you can see it below: Again, I don't expect this change to be particularly divisive. The screen gives you an easy way to see the loadout of your team and rearrange them in the dropship before you send them off to battle. There's obviously limits here to what we can show; there's no belt slots (or backpack) and we'd probably be limited to 12 soldiers unless we shrunk the bars down. Armory vs. Contextual Slots: The planned mechanics for Xenonauts replaces the (Tetris-style) inventory tiles from Xenonauts 1 with a series of slots - the Armour slot, Primary slot, Secondary slot and the 6 Belt slots. Three things to discuss here - limiting items to certain slots, the contextual selection UI, and the lack of the backpack. You can see in the above gif that items are limited to certain slots. For example, the majority of the weapons from X1 can only go in the Primary slot. Sidearms, melee weapons and items like medikits can only go in the Secondary slot. Note that this change does not have to be tied to the lack of a backpack; for instance we could add a backpack that could contain either a single Primary item or two Secondary items. Instead, the main advantage of this system is that you don't have to have the huge Armory panel on the Soldier Equip screen that contains every piece of battlefield equipment in your base stores. You just click on a slot and a contextual menu pops up that contains all the valid items. This much easier to use and is visually more attractive. The final thing to talk about is the backpack. This has been removed in the current design for X2 for the following reasons: It's not ideal if the player is able to equip soldiers with multiple primary weapons, as battles are much less tactical if all the soldiers can do everything. If your sniper can pick enemies off at long range, but instantly switch to a shotgun and destroy enemies at short range too ... what's his weakness? Limiting the player to a single Primary weapon and single Secondary item means we can give those items certain properties that don't work if the player can carry several of them. For example: The SMG is a Primary weapon that does less damage than a Rifle but gives the user a TU bonus. This isn't really viable if the soldier can carry a Rifle in his backpack and run around with the SMG then switch to the Rifle as soon as he encounters an enemy. Secondary items with passive effects (e.g. a psionic mind shield or a motion detector) are a bit overpowered if you can leave them equipped most of the time, but then temporarily switch to an "active" secondary like a Medikit when you need to heal someone. It effectively gives you the benefit of both. Certain items don't really make sense unless there are limits on other slots; for instance a pistol sidearm for the secondary slot is kinda pointless if the soldier can just carry a second primary weapon instead. The tetris-style backpack won't work the contextual slot UI seen in the gif above, so we'd need to move back to the clunky Armory UI. Which is going to get even more cluttered when we add extra items and the modular weapon / armour customisation options. Having said that, removing the backpack isn't the only way we can fix many of these problems. We could give soldiers a backpack and allow them to carry multiple weapons, but give the soldier a TU penalty appropriate to the weight of the weapon (which means sidearms would still have a use). The passive secondary items could instead be integrated into particular suits of armour, and the extra active secondary items could be carried in this backpack the same way that extra primary weapons are. As I don't particularly want to lose the contextual UI, you could potentially structure a backpack like a list instead of it being 6x6 tile grid or whatever. Adding an item to this list could give the soldier a certain TU penalty: e.g. a Primary item -10 TU, a Secondary item -5 TU, and a Belt item 2 -TU. This would give you access to extra equipment if you want it, but make the soldier less mobile if you do weigh them down with extra gear). Strength System: I also don't like the Strength system for governing how much a unit can carry. I think it's another very fiddly system, for these reasons: Equipping pre-set loadouts for soldiers is kinda annoying because you have to individually tweak each one every time depending on the soldier's strength Experienced soldiers can carry loads of gear relative to newbies. They aquire this skill by adding slightly more to their loadout each battle, training a stat that is only really used to control how much weight you can carry. It all just seems a bit weird and circular to me. You run into "realistic weight" problems for items, where their real-world weight and size isn't always proportional to their in-game usefulness - e.g. if we decided grenades were overpowered, we couldn't increase their weight much because everyone knows roughly how much a grenade weighs. This doesn't necessarily mean that the Strength system has to be removed entirely (although in the current design it is), but I think in its current form it's a pretty complicated system that needs to be improved somehow. Conclusion: There's plenty to discuss, but hopefully now people know what my concerns are with the inventory system and what I'm trying to achieve with the new mechanics they will be able to make suggestions to improve my idea. I think it's important that people try to communicate what it is they enjoyed about the Xenonauts 1 inventory system because it may be possible to recreate the good parts without having to revert back to the Xenonauts 1 system entirely. So, what do people think? Any thoughts or suggestions?
  3. 3 points
    To me, the freedom of inventory is one of the most important aspects of the game. I like the Firaxis X-Com series. They're fun games, though less replayable than the 90s games or Xenonauts, and my least favorite change in the Firaxis games is how the inventory is limited. My ideal inventory system would pretty much be the one from X1, with a better UI and slightly better balance. I also understand why the slot system is attractive and easier to work with. Chris, you use the example of multiple primary weapons, and I think it's a great one - to me, it represents the kind of thing that should be allowed but should also be balanced. So I would favor a backpack + belt system, where the belt is for a sidearm and grenades, and backpack is for everything else that fits, including possibly another primary weapon. To balance it well, I think it would be sufficient to introduce a "this action consumes all TU" mechanic. So a soldier can switch their primary weapon to the one in the backpack, but that will set their TU to 0 (and they need at least 50% of their TU remaining to do it in the first place). You can similarly balance switching of utility items like Medkits / psi shields if you need to. While the Strength mechanic in X1 to control carry weight was indeed fiddly, let's not forget that the strength statistic was in fact used quite well for some other mechanics in the game, affecting heavy weapon use and grenade throwing.
  4. 3 points
    One thing I guess I didn't adequately explain in the original post is how much I don't like the Strength system for governing how much a unit can carry. I think it's another very fiddly system, for these reasons: Equipping pre-set loadouts for soldiers is kinda annoying because you have to individually tweak each one every time depending on the soldier's strength Experienced soldiers can carry loads of gear relative to newbies. They aquire this skill by adding slightly more to their loadout each battle, training a stat that is only really used to control how much weight you can carry. It all just seems a bit weird and pointless to me. You run into "realistic weight" problems for items, where their real-world weight and size isn't always proportional to their in-game usefulness - e.g. if we decided grenades were overpowered, we couldn't increase their weight much because everyone knows roughly how much a grenade weighs. This doesn't necessarily mean that the Strength system has to be removed entirely (although in the current design it is), but I think in its current form it's a pretty complicated system.
  5. 2 points
    The Xenonauts-2 Kickstarter page is now live and can be accessed here! We've been talking about this Kickstarter for so long that it's a little bit surreal to finally press the button and see it go live ... but it's out there now, and everyone here at Goldhawk HQ has their fingers crossed that the next 30 days goes well! We'd hugely appreciate any support you guys were willing to give us, particularly if you're willing to help us get off to a strong start by backing us in the first 24 hours! All the information you need is on the Kickstarter page, but if you want to help us by spreading the word then please: Tell any friends you think might be interested in the game! Mention our Kickstarter campaign in any gaming communities that you are part of! Upvote our announcement on Reddit! Retweet our Twitter announcement! Anything else you can think of! Anyone that backs the Kickstarter is eligible to vote for the ordering of the stretch goals on our Google Forms poll during the first week of the Kickstarter. If you want to vote, the poll can be accessed here. A few brief points of interest to anyone that has been following the Kickstarter planning: Every custom soldier (£35+) is now eligible for a custom portrait created through the Portrait Editor, rather than this being limited to the £75 tier I decided to remove the £75 and £100 tiers entirely We fixed a couple of bugs in the Portrait Editor that meant red hair was not working, and certain skin tones did not show eyes if you switched immediately to them If you have any questions or comments, feel free to ask them here. I suspect I'll be pretty active on the forums and the Kickstarter page over the next couple of days
  6. 2 points
    I've been been an advocate for a more realistic and grittier version of Xenonauts 2 than what some others on this forum believe to be optimal, and realizing this, i started to ask myself ... why exactly? Is more realistic and more gritty intrinsically better? No. More realistic generally is, as it helps with issues like relatability or immersion, but there are some great games out there that care little to not at all about being realistic - Tetris comes to mind as an obvious example. A game like Xenonauts 2 is not a reflex based game, like a twitch shooter or some console game waving around lightsabers at shiny bits. It is not a game of social organisation like a MOBA or getting a guild to work in a MMORPG. It can be a game about exploring a story and consequences of choices, like the classical Telltale games. It definitely is a game for people who like reading text and numbers and solving strategic/tactic puzzles. Ultimately, this is a game about a war. Xenonauts 1 was a war between two nation like societies, with taxes and armies and fairly clearly defined battlefields, and Xenonauts 2 is intended to more closely mimic the modern assymetric wars that are beginning to be the norm with a small group trying to do what they can while having to avoid open battle, utilizing abductions and assassinations and the like. So where can this game go? I basically see two options: either leaning towards a realistic, potentially harrowing, or instead towards a super-hero-esque power fantasy. People here know which direction i prefer, but don't get me wrong: i do not think that a power fantasy is bad at all. There are solid reasons why films like Rambo 2 are more popular amongst children coming from war zones than a film like the first John Rambo, which shows the protagonist disempowered, traumatized, and forced back into a warrior personality he had hoped to leave behind. Still, i asked myself: why would i prefer the more harrowing version? I think i can safely say i have more experience with horror and violence than the average of those who frequent this forum ... so why go back to that place after i finally left it behind? Analyzing that, i realized that a large reason for that is that a game pandering to power fantasies is so far removed from the reality i perceive that it feels bland, disconnected and unrelatable. The reality i know is not one where all soldiers in a company will survive, excluding the token black guy who will die as inspiration to the rest of the troops. It is not one where if you just try hard enough and believe in yourself enough you can overcome any odds. Instead, my reality is one where sometimes your best just isn't enough, and sometimes you have to make hard decisions and live for the rest of your life with the choices you made, and the consequences of your actions. I know some people think that we should rather tell stories that propagate these lies rather than face reality and be disheartened, but i do wonder if doing so does not actually cause way more harm than good. Because reality does catch up eventually, and it seems obvious that one of the evolutionary purposes of games includes preparing us for real challenges. Still, there are probably way more 11-14 year old kids out there that love power fantasies than there are people like me ... so why not rather have the game pander to the power fantasy? My answer would be that a game like that is already out there with Firaxis X-Com. When i played Firaxiscom i felt mostly bored, detatched from the conflict. Humans are the most amazing beings in the universe, easily capable of defeating psionic-wielding superminds, out-tech ancient races that had aeons to advance science to it's peak and stomp on warrior races genetically engineered for their purpose, and ultimately, OF COURSE the humans are the very key that the aliens have looked for so long. On the flip side, the intro screen from Xenonauts 1 immediately drew me in. A number of older military commanders look at you with facial expressions ranging from doubt to slight disdain, as if to tell you: "We've given you a lot of money and hardware, and a lot of good men. We all advised against it, but our governments ordered us to. Do not disappoint us!" And the game continues to tell us that we are nothing special at all, just another world to be conquered and added to a giant empire spanning multiple galaxies. If anything is to make us special, it is our choices and actions as a player that are to set us apart. The two moments that got the biggest emotional response out of me were quite minor sidenotes in the game. With stun guns and gas grenades i captured multiple Sebillians alive in an early mission to advance my research. The post mission run down made me pause for a short time. 1 Scout Data Core .................. Sent to research division 6 Alenium .............................. Sent to storage 12 Alien Alloys ........................ Sent to storage 4 Sebillian Corpses ................. Destroyed 1 Sebillian Non-Combatant ...... Sent to research division 3 Sebillian Non-Combatants ..... Executed I sat in silence after reading that last line. I understood why we did it, but we were murdering civilians. This gets even worse when you learn that these beings were actually forced into slavery and combat service, and we probably just wrecked our chances at a potential diplomatic solution. Are we really the good guys? The second happened when i looked at the research files, and found that the researches for the alien species are actually titled "vivisections". If i remember correctly it was the great author Isaac Asimov who wrote that science fiction is not about the technical advancements - the lightswords, lasercannons, jetpacks or teleporters - but what how we interact with the introduction of these new technologies reveals about us humans. While i do not think that it should be every game's purpose to do this, i do maintain that it is good to have games that give us pause, make us think, challenge our moral assumptions and our perception of the world. Reflex or coordination based games are unsuitable for this, games centered around social interaction would be an interesting option yet i've never seen it done in any, but games focused around story are definitely most suited for this. I personally maintain that a strategy game like Xenonauts might in many aspects be even better at this than pick your poison games like the Tell-Tale games or those from Quantic Dreams, because i believe that implications created through game mechanics resonate far stronger than these very obvious choices. A good example in my eyes would be to compare Prison Architect to the recent game Detroit. In Detroit you have the choice to either push some buttons to disobey your orders or not to, in Prison Architect due to the game mechanics you just end up making more money by constructing tight housing for prisoners than by focusing on optimizing their recidivism rate, mimicing a real life fact. Imagine that you had the option to work for criminal syndicates to up your budget in Xenonauts 2. Would you do it? How much would they need to offer? At what type of missions would you draw the line? How bad would the war against the aliens need to go for you to reconsider? If one of your agents was about to defect with information to the aliens because they are disgusted with your cooperation with organized crime, would you let the crime lords kidnap his family to stop him, or would you accept that some of your agents in the field will be killed because of the information this man will leak? The X-Com developed by Firaxis is a game from a huge company, developed on a hefty budget with shareholders expecting optimized returns, so naturally it will pander to the biggest crowd and try to go for as instant gratification as possible, no matter how shallow it may be. So why should Xenonauts or Xenonauts 2 be any different? Because it can. Creating a product for a more niche audience is a good business decision for a smaller competitor, and Goldhawk can afford to ask the questions that Firaxis wouldn't dare to touch. If Goldhawk won't create an adult, uncomfortable, complicated, ethically challenging and thought inspiring X-Com successor, then my question is: who will?
  7. 2 points
    Hi, Been around since the original X-COM (and before). I really like turn based tactical games but my daytime work as a Software Development Manager takes too much time so I did unfortunately not read about Xenonauts until the GOG giveaway. Love the game and have pledged in the Kickstarter for Xenonauts 2 now. Really looking forward to it! Playing the Tech Demo (and yes I understand it is an alpha), I realized that the soldier panels are way too small for me at least (and thats only on 1920x1080). I was looking for a UI-scaling option with no luck. For me the vertical bars representing health / action points etc are too small. Especially the action points bar is very important when planning your moves. Did some quick edits to show what I mean: 1 - The way it looks now in the tech demo: 2 - The easiest "fix" - Just scale up the soldier panels 3 - OR change them a bit putting the bars horizontal for more granularity. And for example add the name as you often want to select a specific soldier.. 4 - EDIT: Added another one with flags and "compressed". Maybe a bit bloated... 5 - EDIT: A final one after discussion in this thread with TU on top as that really is the most important one and soldier numbers for shortcuts. Did this one "mid turn". Ibra next in line 6 - Final cut with background for the names and flags on the same row as the gun Good luck with the game!
  8. 2 points
    Do you have a source for that? I find it very difficult to believe that any soldiers regularly deploy into combat with an LMG and all the ammunition required to use it effectively, plus a RPG or rocket launcher of any variety and enough ammo to use it effectively. Everything I've read suggests that a single soldier generally carries only one of those weapons and even then usually needs assistance from carrying all the required ammunition for it. EDIT - Also, this is one of the major reasons why I want to move away from a Strength-based system for carrying items. When people start talking about how much items actually weigh and talking about how much a soldier can actually carry, the debate stops being about what makes the game fun and enjoyable to play (e.g. soldiers have hilariously short vision ranges and are terrible shots because it makes the game more interesting). Using a TU penalty system rather than a weight system at least provides a level of abstraction; it means nobody will pop up telling me that an M16 actually weighs 4kg instead of 7kg and its ruining the game for them.
  9. 2 points
    Fantastic funding - my only disappointment is that the orchestral soundtrack isn't highly voted. Having an orchestra record the music really makes a difference, and that's the one thing that modders cannot really implement.
  10. 2 points
    Remember: Destructible Environments ROCK! Firing an Anti-Tank missile on the ground should seriously create a crater (destructible ground is important!). The physics must be as good or better than X-Com Apocalypse. If I detonate a pack of C4 in the basement of a skyscraper, I want the pleasure of watching all that rubble crush every single alien in that tower! Special tools must be made available through research, that lets the Xenonauts destroy resilient walls. In "Terror from the Deep" you could research a "Heavy Theramic Drill" - this melee-range bad-boy was one of the few melee weapons that could drill through UFO armor and allow soldiers to create emergency openings through anything. Now I don't care if you call it "breaching charges" or "Portal Gun" - I just want the freedom to blast my way through any obstacle. With a destructible environment, it is important to give the player something to 'discover'. For example. If you add manhole covers to streets and some basements, then the player will be thrilled to someday realize that he can blow up the manhole cover and send agents down a ladder into old sewer pipes! And no doubt the player will use this discovery to breach through sewer walls into basements of banks, bunkers and... swimming pools? Certain buildings should also have 'hidden rooms'. Like a room behind the elevator shaft where two generators provide emergency power for the building. (Blow them up and turn on your flashlights!). In honor of the first "The Predator" movie, you should adjust the health of all trees such that a single Xenonaut with a minigun can 'clear the forest' - like they do in the movie. Hm... Maybe consider having a "density" variable for jungle maps? "Low density" = sparse and tall trees with no underbrush. "High density jungle" = various pass-through plants block vision - you can either push through the underbrush and flatten the plants, or you can use a minigun or a flamethrower to clear the ground so no aliens can hide in the bushes.
  11. 2 points
    @GedxBlood I think that stealth is an interesting mechanic to play with, but in practice, the XCOM2 implementation of it left me feeling that it just isn't that exciting. Maybe if the maps were bigger and then it could become more developed. On the other hand, looking at the darkness of a tile as an element of cover would be interesting. So visibility of the units within wouldn't be affected, but hiding in the shadows would make the unit harder to hit. In terms of the inventory discussion: I think people want to make a mule of a soldier or two, to stock a dude up with 25 grenades and give someone else three riot shields, just for the hell of it. Sure, it is a laugh but is it a form of cheating? Does it circumvent the carefully balanced stats for the weapons? You've got to disengage what seems fun and tactical, from what is actually a way to cheese the game. My gut feeling is that the inventory should have a secondary weapon slot and a backpack that can't carry weapons - so you'd use it for utility items, grenades or ammo. That way you still face the disadvantages of your weapon choice but you get a bit of freedom to mule. Grenades aren't so OP in Xenonauts that a stockpile of them would trivialise ground combat. That is the point essentially, if you want each soldier to be able to bring along 25* one item, then that item can't be very good. Overall, I agree that XCOM-level streamlining of the inventory is too far, but I have to say that people wanting the option to equip a soldier with three weapon classes are missing the point.
  12. 2 points
    Chris, in terms of X2, you could think of this "squad cohesion" mechanics as the other side of the stress mechanic. You have stress that soldiers accumulate from fighting in general, and traumatic events in particular. Squad cohesion could essentially be a factor in the stress mechanic - soldiers are more likely to trust other soldiers that they've already fought together with. Send a soldier on a mission surrounded by familiar faces, and they are less stressed by the combat. Have 6 people fight together for the first time and everyone is more stressed.
  13. 2 points
    ... I will be happy to see even the minimal implementation: current "Ctrl-Shift" feature displays not just accuracy from chosen position, but also the number of possible shots of the chosen type plus the number of "excessive" TUs (left after you make those shots)!
  14. 2 points
    Have you guys ever heard of Xcom2 "Grimmy's Morale Mod"? His description kinda says it all: "We Darkest Dungeon Now" It really takes the morale factor (i.e "Will") and enhances its importance. Not only now your troops will begin to fail when friends drop or things go south, but if the combat takes too long, they morale will wear out (even by enemy missed shots. Who likes to get shot, eh?) and become a real issue. Coupled with S.P.A.R.K.S that isn't affected by morale (And become THE most important troop in long engagements) and by rookies with low morale that will panick real damn quickly and sometimes you will have very interesting scenarios in your hand, and by interesting I mean "GOD DAMMIT ROOKIE, I WAS COUNTING ON YOU TO SAVE MY MAJOR!" and things of the sort.
  15. 2 points
    So an update on this - the C4 is already in the game, and it's now a "remote charge". Basically you lay it in an adjacent tile and you get a detonator that allows you to trigger it at any time during your turn. The idea is that you can lay it up against the wall / UFO hull, set up your men, pass the turn, then trigger the explosives at the start of your next turn and charge in with everyone having full TU. Although I'm sure people will find plenty of other uses for it :P
  16. 2 points
    I usually found as soon as I had access to mind control the game became quite trivial. See alien, control alien, drop own grenade at feet of alien etc etc. I actually prefer not to have it and for the aliens to have a watered down version as it was just too powerful with too little risk to the user in the OG. I am not however completely against having access to psi powers, or even mind control, if it can be made an interesting tactical option instead of either insanely frustrating or boringly overpowered. For example maybe mind controlling an alien doesn't give you full control but does make it see other aliens as enemies and your troops as allies for a turn or two. It could then act accordingly.
  17. 2 points
    You didn't seem to mention any carrot after that. Do you mean something like peak performance? I think an excellent use for the stress mechanic would be a soldier being "in the zone", where if the stress level of a soldier is sitting in a certain golden range (not too stressed, but not too calm) they have a boost to their accuracy, bravery, reflexes, and maybe even their XP gain since they're paying more attention. The bravery boost keeps them in the zone fairly well, but if their stress rises too high they lose that bravery boost and become more susceptible to a stress spiral. Medals gained from their combat experiences, especially the purple heart, could expand the range of stress values considered "in the zone" maybe even to the point that they're "in the zone" on the very first turn before they even leave the dropship. Just like every war movie where a new recruit joins the platoon, and his optimism makes him ineffective compared to the veteran soldiers who are constantly on edge.
  18. 2 points
    There was a thread where a user brought up the idea of sending soldiers on infiltration missions in order to gain intel, or requiring a soldier to be sent to scout missions before sending a dropship. This could translate to gameplay by having the Xenonauts recognize local forces before landing. No intel would mean everyone is seen as hostile, weak intel means you recognize the local forces, and strong intel means you arrive dressed as local forces, so they're your allies. I can't really come up with anything better, but I think the flavor of having spies in places fits well with the shadow war theme of the game.
  19. 1 point
    If I remember correctly, rushed end game was because of budget reasons. There simply wasn't enough time or money to test, balance and polish the game beyond corvette. I'm sure Goldhawk won't make the same mistake with X-2.
  20. 1 point
    @Severvus (I'm not intentionally arguing with you in several threads, sorry if it seems personal) if a UFO is flying at mach 6 and you can't keep up, you still get one shot at it when you aren't pursuing from behind but instead are coming at it from the side or head on. After that, you're bummed because you can't catch up. And if you take that logic further, the dog fight wouldn't stretch to cannon fire because you're only at engagement range for enough time to launch a single missile salvo. @Kalshion the problem with missiles... ...but as you said, linking it to threat could be an option. So you only use the missiles as an unfavourable option because it works to your disadvantage in another aspect of the game. You face the trade-off between your interceptors' chance to down the UFO (possibly losing your aircraft) and the missile's greater power but negative consequences (launching missiles in friendly territory is never a winner with the voters). I'd take this further and suggest that the xenonauts don't own the missile silos, that the local forces remain in control of them and it is your relationship/reputation with the region that determines if you can order the missile to fire. Maybe have it such that you can improve the missile silos with alien tech, but that can bite you in the ass if your relationship with the area turns sour, since then you'd have a 'plasma missile' targeting your skyranger if it tried to fly through that airspace.
  21. 1 point
    Idea: Hiding-from-UFO-event Imagine a cut-scene (a big picture and some text might be enough) where the alarms go off and you are told that a stealthy scout UFO has appeared within 200 km of your homebase. You now have to choose how to handle the crisis. 1. Launch your fighters? - If the fighters cannot intercept the UFO fast enough, it may discover the location of your base - or at least the airport the fighters launched from. 2. Switch the radar to passive to avoid revealing the location of your radar dish? - It will be hard to track the stealthy UFO without active radar. You could keep the base in low power mode for days without knowing whether the UFO has left or is still scanning the area. You might have to wait for a visual confirmation - either by soldiers on the ground, or if the UFO approaches within 10 km of the base. 2b. If you told the base to power down, but the scout sweeps to within 10km anyway, then you have the option of deploying the bases pop-up defenses - powerful artillery and missile platforms that are concealed underground but can be elevated to the surface to protect the base against UFOs. 3. Do you want to call an allied airbase and have them attack the UFO's as a diversion so it looks for your in another direction? Whatever you do, it has different consequences. If you go silent and the UFO passes overhead without spotting the bases power signature, then it will be a long time before the UFOs scan the region again. But if you engaged the UFO and won, the aliens will not wait long to send out a second scout to see what happened to the first. At worst, the UFO could destroy your radar, your airfield, or even damage the powerplant. And if you do not engage the UFO, and it detects you, you might have a full on ground-combat invasion-force to deal with. I firmly believe, that adding small story-events with just pictures and text, could boost Xenonauts 2 to an entirely new level, compared to all the other spin-offs.
  22. 1 point
    I backed Xenonauts early because I loved the idea of a real successor to X-Com (my favorite game of all time). One of the reasons I was so disappointed with nuCom is all the "streamlining" of the game mechanics. There is a lot I could say about it actually, but I am tired and past my bedtime already. Suffice it to say I hope the player is given the freedom to play in the style they wish. People tend to think of open world games like GTA as "sandbox" games, and I have always thought of X-Com and TFTD as sandbox games in their own right. The game developer gives players a goal and the tools to accomplish that goal, but also gives them a lot of freedom in the way they can use the tools to reach said goal. Trusting the players to be creative with the tools given to them is (sadly) not very common anymore in game development. That being said, I have backed the KS and I hope X2 is a great success! P.S. - Remember, players can fix any poor dev decision with the judicious application of a mod.
  23. 1 point
    The idea I'm playing with is that if there's a mind-control capable alien on the map, they can either cast mind control on any Xenonaut that they can see themselves - or "possess" a different alien that can see a Xenonaut instead. The posessed alien acts and fights as normal, but if it survives a whole turn (i.e. if the player doesn't kill it on his turn) then the psionic alien can cast mind control using squad sight from the posessed alien. That would give a nice mix of a single psionic alien harassing you for the entire mission from the bridge of his UFO / whatever, but also allow the player to prevent his soldiers being mind controlled by immediately killing / running away from any aliens that are posessed.
  24. 1 point
    I think you'll probably have to play the game before you comment here - I personally don't think it's going to be that bad, although I must admit Threat isn't fully developed as a mechanic in gamplay terms yet ... so I guess we'll have to see how that turns out over the longer term. I think changing the appearance of the ground combat mission is beyond scope, and I think the assumption should probably be that the CIA HQ / whatever has been forcibly brought under alien control rather than reduced to a smoking crater in the ground! I think there's definitely scope for making the field operations something quite important, but the number of ground combat missions in the game isn't actually being reduced unless you happened to be the kind of person who send a squad of soldiers to every single UFO crash site that you made in the first game. I like this idea a lot; it's actually something I've been looking into myself for a bit. It does pose some balance problems but if I can figure out a way to work around it then it would be cool if you would generally only start shooting down UFOs in the mid-game (unless your building a whole strategy around downing a UFO in the early game). However if that's the case, the player needs an equivalent way to scavenge advanced equipment beyond just shooting up alien infiltration teams - I'm looking into having some small or semi-abandoned alien facilities on the map that you can seek out using your Field Agents. Yeah. Maybe it can be made more interesting if we have the development time to spare on it, but currently we've just got plans to have a single final mission.
  25. 1 point
    I'm also for getting rid of hidden movement screen, if not completely, than at least in-game option to remove it.
×