Jump to content


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 11/29/2019 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    From what I gather, there's been a lot of talk about how armour should be handled in the game. Whether it should be ablative (HP), whether it should work like a spring (% damage reduction), or whether it should work like armour. A scifi setting can justify ablative armour, or DUNE like armour that increases defence according to the level of the threat. But when you're talking about human armour, you're talking about level III kevlar vests using level IV ceramic inserts. It makes sense for human armour to be well within our understanding and seem plausible. Otherwise, what makes the alien scifi armour special, if you start with inertial dampeners or pseudo-magical armour? % Based Armour The issue with % based armours is they feel downright magical, and that any improvement in armour has massive effect, and yet is pretty darn pointless and useless at lower levels. If you have 100 HP and a 5% reduction to damage (we'll ignore types for now), there is very little it can do for you. Any hit above 105 damage will incapacitate you. If damage averages high relative to your health, those 5 points don't make a difference. And if damage averaged even as low as 1 HP of damage, it just means it will take 105 hits to kill you, instead of 100 hits. Meanwhile, if you make it 80%, boy does it look weird. A pistol that inflicts a maximum of 60 damage now only does 12, shaving off 38 points, but still taking off more than a tenth of your health. A .50 cal rifle of 500 max damage is reduced to 100, shaving off 400 points. So, with any damage variance, you can quite easily survive a shot from an anti material rifle, yet can be killed by 9 pistol shots. Balancing % based armour is also really annoying, and it's the same work as balancing straight-damage armour. Ablative Armour Chris covered one of the points against this in the past, HP-based armour. Skilled players make good use of cover, so rarely get shot. Ablative armour is also basically a free hit, which allows you to perform suicidal tactics. If you know you can take three hits before dying, then you might as well act like a maniac until you get hit at least once. You can then rotate other troops in with full armour, until everyone has had a turn playing Rambo. This might be interesting for an action game, but for a tactics game it's just a droll sort of meta game strategy which makes you feel totally secure while fighting 'horrifying' aliens. It also has the issue of turning everyone into MMORPG style bullet sponges, as the game progresses. If you have an armour upgrade, of course it will give you more HP. Whereas before gunfire might've been dangerous and intimidating, it becomes laughable. The suicidal tactics I mentioned become the obvious strategy, as there's no reason to fear Reaction Fire as you rush through the open. To get things back on track, you add in guns with massively more damage, fixing the armour and undoing what it did. Soon, you all wear increasingly bigger pauldrons and use sillier looking axes, until you look like this. The weapons at the start of the game become toys, and you enter an epic league beyond human interest. Balancing ablative armour isn't really hard, it is just pointless. It's great for padding out recent games by turning them into mind-numbingly boring RPGs, that sell XP boosters so you can get them over with faster. Real Armour Real armour has some of the qualities of the above. Like the Ablative, you can try to tank some hits, and play things more riskily. And it is risky, Since like % armour it is possible to be killed by enough pistol shots, so long as one of them goes through your visor. You can't ignore tactics, you still want to use cover and avoid fire, in case your armour fails you. Yet you still get that feeling of power, from wearing armour that lets you shrug off attacks that would surely kill your unarmoured allies. Still, you never shake the feeling of dread, of when an enemy sends a plasma bolt your way. There's not a lot to say about genuine armour... because there isn't anything wrong with it. Straight-damage armour serves its purpose, and it does it well; even if it does it without the fanfare and flashy numbers of modern games. Balancing this isn't as easy as Ablative armour, where you can just pick whatever numbers you feel like, but it is straight forward. Armour is built to withstand certain levels of gunfire, and weapons are designed to pierce that armour, each piece of equipment has its class and its uses in the tactical meta. Additional details: Below are some additional ideas and details for the handling of armour.
  2. 5 points
    You're saying this as if an improved Xenonauts is a bad thing and it has to be something completely different.
  3. 4 points
    Actually this was the one part that I hope would change with Xenonauts 2. The dynamic of the Cold War was something woefully underused in the first game and I hope would be more emphasized. The whole MIB aspect could lend to a multitude of ways to deal with civilians on a map like just non lethally taking them down so that they wouldn’t run around like headless chickens and get turned into zombies by the Reapers or standing in the middle of a firefight blocking your shots. Not to mention the tech sharing possibilities. Maybe each bloc of the Cold War can offer different pros and cons for you to choose a side to tech share so that the war against the aliens will not only change the fate of humanity but the course of the Cold War as well. For instance gaining the favor of the Soviet Union by ruining a coup perpetrated by the US with some help of the aliens in exchange for a missile scientist. Or stealing cargo from a GDR convoy for the FDR to gain a some funds and a communications scientist. This will force the player to either play a game of tight rope balancing the power of two sides to avoid nuclear Armageddon or go all out to support one faction to eventually create a united world against the aliens. At the end there could be three different outcome. 1. You help the capitalist side win and collapse the Warsaw Pact 2. You help the communist win and establish a world government 3. You prolong the Cold War further into space
  4. 4 points
    Closed Beta Build V12 has now been released on Steam and GOG. Note that this build is only available on our Experimental branch so you'll need to switch over to get this update (instructions on how to do that here). This build expands on the new MARS vehicle, and formalises the Orbital Bombardment and Signal Uplink mechanics we added in the last build into proper systems. Annoyingly, several new bits of content were close to being complete but didn't quite make it into the build - aerial terror sites, the new armour / penetration mechanics, and a new early-game escort UFO. Instead, they'll be coming in the next build. After this release and the various hotfixes we'll need to put out for it, we're going to take a bit of time to fix some backend stuff that's been causing us problems for a while, and perhaps also add the final Geoscape mechanics still required before we can call the Geoscape feature complete. This is quite a bit of stuff to get through, so it might be a month or so until the next update - but I think it's going to be a cool one, as there's also some new art incoming too. More about that in a proper developer update though! Key Changes: Relations becomes Panic: to make things easier to understand, each region now has a Panic score instead of a Relations score. This changes very little except a region is lost when Panic reaches 100, so any effects that reduced Relations (e.g. Orbital Bombardment and UFO activity) now increase Panic instead. Orbital Bombardment Notification: you now get a notification when the aliens destroy a city from orbit. Setting this system up also involved adding cities to the Geoscape and giving them all a population (and priority score for how likely the aliens are to blow them up). Signal Uplinks: these are now proper Geoscape objects rather than hacked-together Strategic Operations. You no longer need to assign a soldier to them to complete the mission, and the costs and effects are shown more clearly. You have an Uplink Capacity which controls how many uplinks you can have operational at once; there is a new base building called the Comms Room which increases this. In the next major build aliens will be able to attack and destroy these signal uplinks, so it's a bad idea to construct them in areas that your interceptors cannot cover! MARS / ARES tech tree: the MARS support vehicle we added in V11 has undergone some changes and now has a tech tree associated with it. Note that most of these changes are experimental so they're not yet reflected in the artwork of the game - it's all still pretty placeholder! The ARES becomes available in the mid-game. This is a small hovertank (currently represented by the X1 Hyperion) that is slightly less tough than the MARS, but has better Accuracy and more TUs. The MARS and ARES now recieve armour upgrades whenever your aircraft get armour upgrades, meaning they get tougher as the game goes on. Both the MARS and ARES have an optional armour module that fits extra armour plating, boosting their HP but reducing their TU (this is independent from the researchable armour upgrades). You can therefore choose whether you want your vehicle to act more like a scout or a tank. Vehicles now have a Primary and a Secondary slot, but no Belt. Vehicles can no longer equip infantry weapons, and must choose a Primary and Secondary from the following list: Primary: HMG: this is a stronger version of the infantry LMG. Cannon: a powerful weapon with a small blast area and decent ammo capacity. Rocket Launcher: fires powerful rockets with a large blast area, but has limited ammo capacity. Secondary: SMG: this is a 100-round version of the infantry SMG, designed to be a backup weapon if the primary runs out of ammo or is inappropriate for the situation. Smoke Launcher: this is a 4-shot grenade launcher that can only fire defensive smoke rounds. Rangefinder: this is not a weapon that can be used in combat, but it boosts the Accuracy of the vehicle by +10. You are now limited to one vehicle in the starting dropship, and the advanced dropship can carry two. Strategy: Bases now have a "radar tracking" value, which is larger than the "radar detection" value. What this means is that a detected UFO can be tracked for some distance beyond detection range, preventing the detection alert spam that could occur when a UFO was flying in and out of a base's detection range. You can now get your hands on the Tactical Visor armour module by completing the Alien Electronics research. Added proper map co-ordinates to the bottom right of the Geoscape screen. The "pop-up" text on the Geoscape (e.g. region names, "construct new base" text, etc) now appears in a set location at the bottom of the map. The cost of building a new base is now displayed when the construct new base mode is active. Tooltips can no longer get stuck to your mouse cursor. Repeatedly clicking the Funding Report button no longer queues up lots of copies of the same pop-up panel. Exosuit now has some armour modules, although there's no art for them yet because we're still painting up the final Exosuit design. Kickstarter soldiers should now be fully set up and any soldier generated by the game has a 10% chance of being picked from the custom soldier pool. Soldier hair should now work properly with helmets (this turned out to be a lot more work than you'd expect!) The names of save games should be slightly easier to read now, and ground combat save files now print the turn number in their file name. There's been quite a few performance improvements on the strategy layer. The Exosuit now boosts your soldiers TU by 12. Equipping the heavy variant removes this bonus, but provides extra armour and boosts your soldiers' Strength to 100 instead. Countries now start at 20 or 30 Panic, rather than at 50. Ground Combat: The MARS should now be able to crush vaultable objects; previously the vault logic was taking precedence (and as vehicles can't vault, it was preventing the MARS from driving through fences). In an alien base, if you clear the Command Room of aliens and have one of your own units present, all remaining aliens on the map will be revealed at the end of the turn. As always, please let us know if you encounter any issues with the build by posting in our bug reporting sub-forums and we'll do our best to patch the issues out!
  5. 4 points
    Mechanically, it was interesting, but LW2 also felt really soulless to me. Plus side, there's no need to choose, LWOTC is actually out. WOTC was made for Mass appeal, and it's board game setup of strategic layers wasn't meant for thinking too hard about the logistics, it's kind of like comparing a game show and an army base. But yeah, with the soulless problem fixed, and improved performance, LWOTC is a really interesting setup. That said, it only works in that setting. Seeing the infiltrator missions turn into a missions might be a neat way to implement this, but the Xenonauts are basically responding to things instantly, they don't have time for prep, that's what makes it work. (Then it brings the question of why more units aren't sent on either side, why they didn't bring heavier vehicles, why there's no air, and any of the other "why can't we have full military porn, I like guns a lot" greatest hits. ) XDiv seems to walk the line pretty well between the two. You get heavy armor and a free vehicle, your planes are constantly trying to keep some semblance of control above, and there is no point where you don't have a goal to go after. There's lots more locals, and the battles feel very believable. Random Takeaways: Keeping the tech tree crazy over stocked seems to handle keeping the rut away. More enemy types keeps larger battles from getting tedious. Reliable armor keeps RNGesus at Bay. Also feels really good when you break a unit's armor and shred them down. Basically mostly low health and high armor, except for the tanks. Weapons changing mechanics on an individual basis keeps things fresh, LW did this too. Having a free vehicle makes it feel like your people are always doing their best. More weapon types on planes, swapped every Phase, makes the air game feel like aliens are responding to your advances.
  6. 3 points
    - Human (thrown) grenades: Has anyone checked the percentage of self-damaging throws? I think this issue came up before, but unless a soldier is wounded or impaired in some other way or facing high obstacles, I think the percentage of throws that land close enough to kill or injure the person throwing should be about 5%, max. For soldiers to throw a grenade right down in front of themselves, we're talking either dropping it when it is thrown, or being seriously depressed and wanting to end it all. If they're that depressed, it's probably because they were stuck in the wheel of the drop ship the previous turn... - Alien Alloy Starvation This has also been discussed somewhat, but for the 3rd or 4th time in a row, my game will be ending due to being unable to make more advanced anything because I don't have alien materials and can't make better aircraft or weapons or much of anything else. Perhaps the humans might be able to pick up some working weapons and ammo on the battlefield sometimes?
  7. 3 points
    Sorry, yeah. I guess I'll finally comment on that thread given you've asked me about four times now! Yeah, it sort of depends what you want to achieve with those missions; most of them would work rather well in XCOM where it's a sequence of missions that really bear no relation to the actual strategic situation or the in-game world but they don't necessarily logically fit within the structures of Xenonauts 2 so well. In fact, XCOM2 has a much better setup from a lore perspective because the aliens represent an occupying police state so it makes sense that XCOM are rescuing prisoners and all that. To give an example of what I mean, the ideas "capture alien leader", "assassinate alien leader", "clear command post of all aliens" are basically all descriptions of an alien base assault mission, right? Whether you're choosing to capture or kill the alien leadership is something that is down to the player's strategic situation - something that I'd consider a strength of the game in that you get to choose how to handle a mission rather than having to jump through specific hoops. If I look at the list from a mechanical point of view, the ideas fundamentally boil down to: Defend something ("Defend a landmark" / "Defend supplies") Protect VIP ("Escort VIP to exfiltration area" / "Rescue downed pilot" / "Free prisoners" / "Rescue local soldiers under attack by aliens" / "Rescue hostage") Destroy / reach something ("Destroy alien transmission beacon" / "Activate missile site via panel in control room" / "Retrieve information local agents have compiled about aliens" / "Destroy alien mind-control device causing humans to fight you") I guess the tricky thing is to think of ways that many of these things can get into the game. The defence missions seem the easiest candidates; adding some form of non-base defence mission is an idea I've been kicking around for a while and may well make it into X2 before release. As you say, it doesn't really require new mechanics or assets to add them in. But if you take a mission like "destroy alien transmission beacon", you've got to ask yourself how it would be meaningfully different from any other kind of mission. In practice, isn't it going to involve the player just marching through a map and killing all the aliens like they would a standard terror site? It only really becomes something new and interesting if, for example, the aliens have unlimited reinforcements and the player is actively encouraged to focus on the objectives rather than just wiping out the aliens. But then where do those unlimited alien reinforcements come from, and why don't they appear in other missions, etc? It'd be difficult to explain within the context of the game lore. So there's potentially a few ideas there but the key thing is to focus on how the missions would play differently, otherwise the different types of mission wouldn't feel much more different in gameplay terms than fighting a Terror Mission on a American Town map is compared to fighting a Terror Mission on a Soviet Town map. It'd just be the same mechanics with a slightly different flavour on top.
  8. 3 points
    You're entitled to your opinion, but the data that I have and you don't (i.e. Steam wishlists) suggests that the game isn't actually about to die despite the lack of promotion the game is getting beyond our forums and our Kickstarter, whatever the Steam forums and videos might tell you. The focus at the moment is figuring out exactly what the final shape of the game is going to be. We already unveiled one vision for the game during our Kickstarter and had to walk it all back over the past 18 months because it didn't work anywhere near as well as we planned; I'm not going to do that a second time. It's much easier to sell people on a game when there's a clear set of features and a roadmap to release, and to have we need to finish testing our ideas. Sure, non beta-testers might be annoyed at the lack of communication right now but I'd be very surprised if those people are going to tune out when we start showing off all our new features and artwork just because we've gone a bit quiet since our Kickstarter a little under two years ago. We're a small team and it doesn't make sense for us to waste time on marketing when there's nothing for people to buy; we'll start pushing things on the marketing front once we announce our Early Access launch. Until then our time is best spent on the game itself.
  9. 3 points
    Thanks for the tip. I was saving myself for marriage, but the next build seems like a more practical goal..
  10. 3 points
    Hello everyone - hope you all have a merry Christmas and a happy New Year in whatever form you may celebrate it! Although progress on the project has been a little slower than we would have liked over the past month or so, things are still moving forward. The biggest roadblock for recent releases has been this bug on the Experimental branches where the game sometimes freezes up on the loading screen when you try to start a new game. This is obviously quite a serious bug but it has proved rather difficult to track down - and it's now looking like it may be an issue with Unity rather than Xenonauts 2 (it's an issue that occurs when we try to quickly load multiple Asset Bundles at the same time). We're still considering our next move; it's not an easy problem to solve. I've spent most of my time working on writing the research projects in the game, including the plot-related research that drive the game forward. Unfortunately this is something that requires a lot of focus; I can't write effectively if I'm being distracted every ten minutes (this is why I've not spent much time on the forums recently). I've come up with acceptable explanations for fundamental things like Alien Alloys and Alenium, and some of the key alien technologies - if all goes well the next build the early stages of the game will have the first draft of their research text in place rather than just blank space or bullet points! At the same time I've been doing basic testing of the tech tree with regards to the strategy layer. This involves playing the game but using the developer cheats to just auto-win every ground combat without playing it, so it primarily ensures that all the UFOs are spawning correctly and dropping the correct items that unlock the appropriate research which itself unlocks all the correct items and aircraft at the appropriate time. However as I am playing the strategy layer "properly" it has exposed quite a few issues on the Geoscape and in the Air Combat that I've now fixed, e.g. it was previously almost impossible to get beyond the point where Destroyers began appearing (they were just instakilling all your planes at great range), and there were still some missions floating about where powerful aliens were appearing far earlier than they should, etc. The rest of the team have been working on several features that are mostly complete but not yet functional, the biggest two being the Modular Armour system and the support for vehicles (the MARS / ARES one-tile vehicles). The coders responsible for these features are now off on their holidays but both features have already been fully implemented in terms of game logic, and we're now just at the stage where we're fixing bugs and usability problems with them. It's impossible to know how long this process will take with any given feature, so both systems might be in the game and ready to play with a couple of days after we return to work ... or we might still be battling through the bugs a couple of weeks later. Let's hope it's the former! The other thing we've mostly completed is setting up all the Kickstarter backer soldiers and portraits. This is a big task that involves a lot of data processing and quite a lot of code work to hook the properties of the custom soldiers up to the rest of the soldier systems that control "normal" soldiers, but it's mostly done - again we're just working through the bugs (like none of the custom soldiers having faces). I expect this feature will only take a few more hours of work to be completed. To conclude, I expect the early parts of January will mostly involve finishing off all these systems and hooking them up to the research tree while I try to fill in as much of the text as possible. That will form the basis of the next public build, at which point I will start working on testing the game as a whole ... which I suspect is going to involve a lot of map design work!
  11. 3 points
    I did an X2 UI mockup in a hidden thread at least one years ago, may be two. Here it is. I was also proposing a slightly more flexible secondary scheme, so you'll see three tools instead of two. That was before X2 reverted to backpack. Otherwise, I hope it would be pretty intuitive. It may be too late in the development cycle to revamp now, but for what it is worth: (Click to Enlarge. Image is 1920x1080.)
  12. 2 points
    I never got to see your post due to the good work of our resident moderator, but I understand that it wasn't very polite. If that happens again I'll just ban your account and delete all your posts. To be clear, during the development of Xenonauts 1 you demanded in the name of realism that we made a game where transport aircraft did not have global range (and thus for much of the game players were entirely unable to respond to terror sites or other ground missions that did not occur near your initial base) and where interceptor aircraft were both very expensive and were not replaced if shot down (which meant losing a single advanced interceptor could end an entire campaign). Basically, you wanted me to utterly destroy the game balance in the name of realism. When you didn't get what you wanted you spent several months complaining bitterly on our forums and personally insulting me about it, wrote an extremely negative steam review for the game on release where you deliberately lied about what features were / were not in the game to try and destroy our launch sales, came back on our forums again to tell me not to make a sequel and insult me some more ... and then you turn up and once again start complaining about the exact same thing and then throw a massive tantrum when I don't take you seriously? To be completely honest I sort of understand why the first Xenonauts annoyed you so much (even if the scale of your reaction was ridiculous), because you bought the game expecting one thing and it turned out to be something else. I don't regret my choices, but I do empathise with your situation and if I were to do things again I'd probably have offered you a refund on the game once you decided you didn't want it any more. That said, it's probably best for both of us if you don't make the same mistake a second time. This clearly isn't a game you're ever going to enjoy, and me listening to the views of someone who wants the game to be something it was never intended to be doesn't make any sense either, so I don't see how either of us gain anything from you posting here.
  13. 2 points
    So...the release date on GOG is somewhat less than accurate?
  14. 2 points
    This is hopefully the final hotfix for Beta Build V11, currently only available on the Experimental Branch. Unless we've accidentally added some new critical bugs into the game we'll be pushing this out onto the Stable branch and making it the default build for all users later this week. So it'd be great if you guys could give it a little test! Changelog: Armour modules should no longer unequip after every ground mission. Fixed a random crash at the start of mission caused by the game trying to save while the field of view calculations were still being processed. Fixed a lockup that could occur in a ground combat mission when a human or alien plasma grenade was used. Soldiers equipped with "extra armour" now use the heavy armour model in the ground combat missions. Custom soldiers now display their faces correctly. The Exosuit armour is no longer invisible on the Soldier Equip screen. Fixed a bug that could crash the game if you dragged an item back into the stores on the Soldier Equip screen, rather than using the RMB unequip or drag+drop replace functionality. Gameplay / Balance Changes: The Pegasus advanced dropship has been disabled (we've got a bit of a problem we need to address in the map editor before we can export enough maps with the new dropship in it, so we'll hopefully be re-enabling it when the new maps arrive in V12 or V13). Extra Armour now weighs 20 instead of 5. Please continue to report any bugs you encounter in V11 on our dedicated bug report forums, and please give any thoughts on the game balance in this thread.
  15. 2 points
    This is an original X-Com clone.. a clone should be same at core and got improvements here and there with nice additions. There are people out there who wants to play an original xcom game. So this is it. There are many franchises which failed so bad because they changed their core at next installments. To be honest, if the engine was good, we won't even need this. Because X-1 got everything and beyond for people who wants xcom experience. Yeah, it was weak as core game but mods and XCE project handled that so good even against that broken engine. If the engine was good, Goldhawk would make many improvements and expansions already. So for that reason, we needed a remake of X-1 with all the experience and solid ground. A "working" game got always a chance to improve. Working means here to have bug free core elements, like proper shooting, proper AI, proper cover.. Chris made the right choice here. I am happy with that. I hope he can make a very solid, bug free core game. With the mod support, there is no chance to fail. To be honest, i got huge hopes about Phoenix Point but that game got a long way content, game play and bug wise.. i am so happy that, they started with Epic, so in my mind, the game is still in development and they got time about 1 year before they come to steam.. probably much more polished and with needed expansion/DLC's.. So for short, it's a remake of X-1 which is needed and waited for a loooong time. I will wait more if needed. Chris is our only chance to have a proper modern X-Com.. If a solid ground combat needs time, he can have my years..
  16. 2 points
    Yep Steelpoint. The Repair of Aircrafts are very very long. Here I have an Idea to Minimise the Repairtime. That Feature was in in the last Builds and can be integratet in an Hotfixpatch very fast again. Here it comes: What I have noticed is that you can´t move the Research- and Technican Personal as well as Soldiers to the Buildings anymore. That Feature was in the middle and last Builds great. In the complete Builds from Beta Version 5 to Version 10 you can move your Personal to Sickbay and Research (Scientists) as well as Generators and Workshop (Technicans). And the not to forgett the Soldiers in the Training Center to get more EXP. That is a must have again. The Technicans / Scientists should have Access to the Training Center too to help the Soldiers. So you can use 8 Soldiers and 1 Technican / Scientists in one Training Center. Or 10 Soldiers in a Training Center. As well as the Technicans should have access to the Hangars to repair the Aircrafts faster. Or you sepcialice 2 Technikans in every Base to Repair the Fighters / Transports with the Hanger-Personal. So would give the Game more Potential in the Base again.
  17. 2 points
    Yeah, you're right - I forgot to mention that in my post above. This is just a little issue with our build server failing to import those images correctly (they work fine in the dev / editor version of the game) and it should be patched and fixed with the first hotfix early next week.
  18. 2 points
    Instructions could be more clear, yes. Here's clear one. 1. Install Xenonauts 2. Download and install X:CE 0.35 https://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/index.php?/files/file/34-xenonauts-community-edition/ 3. Start game 4. Exit game 5. Download and install X-Division 1.00.00 https://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/index.php?/files/file/7-x-division-10000/ Alternative: https://mega.nz/#!RNBxiYYR!bWJ4oWul3r4U1BKIEXk792pfMbGgVpW1aapmOcJucIY https://mega.nz/#!sVIjXYSa!LeYJCOLqpXF4ebwx115wevT92QRmqEnea7tW8vGzMlA https://mega.nz/#!QEx1RTAA!hZzHDpYEEpf0vru6FeOsWNhOgRsZ8LCiJm290Jk9IyQ 6. Install latest update https://mega.nz/#!dQQwCQRC!gzlksCzX9l91PAJfViyyAyXzd_VN0weUL1X5GZmeuvU
  19. 2 points
    So Trashman, in no particular order. 1) If you're going to have the AI run away into the UFO, then you may as well start the game at the UFO, sans artillery. What's the point in walking across an empty battlefield, People get bored when nothing is happening. 2) If I don't always have the option of having artillery because reasons, I'm going to prepare as if I never have it. If I prepare as if I never have it, then why do I need it in the first place? So that the AI can run to the UFO? Anyway, people are going to point to the aircraft that Xenonauts have, and ask why they can't use those instead of unreliable artillery. In any case, you acknoweldge that artillery is unfair. Unfair when I have it, unfair when the enemy has it. It's an I win button when you apply it to a skirmish-level tactical game. It's why PP at least put the artillery on-map so the other side has half a chance of stopping it.
  20. 2 points
    Well what is a 2 game supposed to be? It is supposed to be similar to the first game. So of course Xenonauts 2 should be very similar to Xenonauts 1. It should have been a continuation of the story in Xenonauts 1 with new features and gameplay arising naturally from that continuation of the story. Instead the original plan for Xenonauts 2 looked like a really bad version of Xcom: EU. But people got behind Xenonauts 1 in the first place because it wasn't like Xcom: EU. So really the problem was that Xenonauts 2 wasn't originally a continuation of Xenonauts 1! From what I saw of the original changes it was Xcom: EU with worse graphics and worse gameplay. When they made Xcom: EU they decided to heavily focus on making the game a turn based squad game and so creating things like an action cam, soldier abilities, awesome graphics, etc. Xenonauts 2 however would have none of that. It would only have the superficial changes everyone hated about Xcom: EU. Specifically the change to a single base being constructed anthill style and air combat that boiled down to RNG. A good upgrade from Xenonauts that would make satellite bases useful is to allow satellite bases to hold troop units that be used to auto resolve ground combat and create heavier restrictions on the ability of Xenonaut crews to run back to back missions. This would require the player to maintain multiple units ideally in multiple locations to combat the multiple downed aircraft. And since most of the battles will be resolved via an automated system the player won't get bored and tired of resolving the multiple downed UFOs. Nor will they feel they are missing out if they auto resolve the UFOs and therefore feel like they have to play through every single one. This was a huge fault in Xenonauts 1.
  21. 2 points
    There should be more types of ammunition with this weapon, the types mentioned above, should be considered, also that when it is fired, it will travel far enough, so the shooter is not in the blast zone!!
  22. 2 points
    HEAP rounds, drop one on top of a UFO/Building so it punches through the roof and then dentonates. Flechette rounds, shreds anything organic in a narrow cone.
  23. 2 points
    The multi-cone idea sounds like a good experiment. Will need some special handling when the soldier turns, to make sure the long cone covers the whole arc. As a side note, Phoenix Point has this perception - stealth system like UFO series, that does not have a fixed vision distance. You can see big enemies right across a mid sized open map, and they can snipe your vehicles too. It is also advised to assign each team a high perception scout. While realistic, apparently it is not intuitive to some players. Xenonaut's vision cone is certainly simple and clear.
  24. 2 points
    Steam can use a competitor, and I don't mean Origin or Uplay. Thus I signed up to Epic just after a week or two. Now I have 47 games on my Epic library not counting DLCs, mostly given for free. As a bonus, epic store does not have mandatory DRM, and I heard that Phoenix Point does not come with one. It helps that Epic provided Snapshot the money it needed to improves phoenix to its current state, too. The game itself can use some bug fixes and rebalance, though, so waiting a bit won't hurt. XCOM 2 was nice (if you don't mind timed everything) but DLCs and mods make it better. That said, I think PP's base game is much more solid and interesting than XCOM (2). This is potential for a very complicated game lol.
  25. 2 points
    Phoenix Point is good example of how introducing new mechanics that deviate from original for sake of change can harm gameplay. Lot of combat problems there came from developer trying to mix things up by introducing XCOM2-based class and abilities, which unfortunately did not turn out to mix well with the design of UFO Defense. The battle is almost entirely skill-dependent at the cost of other tactical elements, and ironically leads to reduced variety in team composition (if you don't go with "correct" build of heavy/sniper or shotgun/sniper, end game becomes near unplayable difficult). Making power difference between rookies and veteran too strong has also led their difference in performance to be too different, making soldiers less disposable and making gamers less inclined to be favourable toward perceived unfairness of aliens. In short, Phoenix Point is suffering because it's been designed as realistic strategy game while new element has shifted the game towards gotta-nuke-everything-in-single-turn puzzle style of XCOM2 battle. While sequel is good opportunity to add additional mechanics that support the original gameplay, I am glad Goldhawk Studio is choosing to build a solid well-proven foundation first, because then the developer can add new elements based on that foundation and also track how it affects game design.