Jump to content

Leaderboard


Popular Content

Showing content with the highest reputation since 01/28/2019 in all areas

  1. 5 points
    By the end of this month everyone who backed the Xenonauts-2 Kickstarter will have their Steam / GOG keys and going exclusive with Epic wouldn't involve taking them away, so using that logic I'm assuming you wouldn't actually mind us signing an Epic exclusive deal? Everyone would have got what they paid for and no promises to backers would have been broken ... but in reality I think there'd still be a big backlash if we did so. I personally find the whole Epic Store debate quite interesting. In principle I like the idea of Steam having more competition, because whilst overall they've been a huge boon to independent developers, they represent about 90% of our sales and yet our only contact with them is one guy who probably replies to our emails less than half the time. Having a competitor to keep them on their toes and make them more responsive to what users and devs want from them can only be a good thing - but then having games be exclusive to just one platform is kinda annoying as a consumer (although Battle.net / Origin / UPlay / whatever have been doing that for a long time so it's hardly a new phenomenon). Anyway, I suspect Snapshot were offered more than enough money to make the backlash they are facing worthwhile. I think it's a very dangerous thing to break promises to your backers and I can certainly see why people are angry, but everyone has their price and if there was enough money on the table then I could also see how that would be tempting for the dev team.
  2. 4 points
    I guess it's time for me to spend 100 hours on a playthrough of X-Division then
  3. 4 points
    This is more of a "feels over reals" kind of explanation, but bear with me. I wanted to show a match wih my modded stats, but Bandicam seems to hate X2 and will crash it without fear or remorse. It's the start of a new game. It's a wood map. You turn a solider in the chopper and spy a Psyon maybe slightly half a tile away. Perhaps 16 spaces or so. It's in the open. You take aim with a solider, aimed shot, 83% chance to ht. You hit, congrats! That's 26 damage. The Psyon returns fire. It hits, that's 55 damage, instant death. You sigh. You get some more soliders out of the chopper and a few more shots later, the Psyon who killed the first soldier is dead. It's now the alien turn. A Psyon appears. It targets a solider who isn't quite in position. The Psyon hits, does 67 points of damage. That soldier is dead. You grit your teeth. Another Psyon appears. One of your soliders takes an overwatch shot. She misses. The Psyon returns fire. A miss! The Psyon fires again. A hit. that's 59 points of damage. Instant death. At this point, you're ready to cinduct experiments on the terminal velocity of monitors vis. 3rd storey windows. Early game, every fight with a Psyon can go pear shaped very, very quickly. The impression, and please forgive my language, is that you don't fuck around with Psyons. If I know that I'm fighting Psyons, I'm carrying lots of smoke. I have my lines of exit clear. The third man (I never fght in twos against Psyons if I can help it) is always ready with smoke in case the other two morons manage to mess it up. I would rather spent all my TU and re-position my team to lure a Psyon to me than get into a shooting match with a Psyon, because I know I will loose that fight. That's all thanks to the plasma rifle. You learn to respect it very quickly, and the plasma rifle gives the Psyon character. Now, same situation. You're facing Sebillians. The Sebillian fires off a burst. One catches the solider. He takes 32 damage. You think "I can handle that". The Sebillian fires off another burst. Another shot hits, that's 25 damage. That's a kill. But it feels different. You feel like the Sebillian has spent a lot of effort trying to kill the solider, that it's been blasting away even though it's actually only spent the same amount of TU and effort that a Psyon does firing the same number of shots. You feel like you can take Sebillians in a shooting war, and you better be able to because Sebillians soak a hella lotta damage, so you have to be able to hold your ground against Sebillians. Shotguns are a vital weapon in the fight against Sebillians, and you need to be able to go over the top to get in close enough to kill a Sebillian. The mag rifle could give the Sebillian as much character as the plasma rifle gives the Psyon, ust based on how it feels to fight them. Or look at it like this. The mag rifle. As dangerous as the plasma rifle. In the hands of an enemy with 45% more health (100% more health for the Brute) who can regenerate. Seriously? I'd almost rather face Androns. I mean, I notice there are both modifiers for armor penetration and armor destruction in the weapon.json master file. Linear weapons are noted as much for their penetrative capabilities as their power. It's one of the common memes in computer games, that railguns typically can penetrate several enemies at once and/or terrain. Perhaps fiddling with armor penetration/destruction as easy numbers to alter would be of value? EDIT: For those interested in my edits, I append my currently edited files. You'll have to replace the current files with the edited ones, which means 1) make backups and 2) don't report bugs with edited files, because even though this is just number editing, editing numbers can have unforseen effects in-game. Xenonauts2Mods.zip
  4. 4 points
    Aaaaand we're spiraling into drama again. indaris, if you want to have a slap fight with Dagar, you're not going to have it on this forum. Thread locked.
  5. 4 points
    Closed Beta Build V6 has now been released on Steam, GOG and Xsolla. Note that this build is only available on our new Experimental branch so you'll need to switch over to get this update (instructions on how to do that here). As usual, please note this closed beta is only open to Kickstarter backers and people who have pre-ordered the game via Xsolla on our website. This is a major update for the game that contains a number of significant new features. We're currently working on getting the remaining "core" systems into the game as fast as possible, so many of these new features are still largely untested. This is why we've set up the Experimental branches - this new build may well be full of game-breaking bugs, but we're extremely busy with feature implementation and so we won't be able to put out a hotfix as quickly as normal. Having V6 on an experimental branch means people can switch back to V5 if they want a more stable experience, so we're not forced to drop what we're doing to patch the game immediately if there are problems. Be aware that you're probably still not going to have any idea what's going on with the new air combat because we've not yet had time to add tooltips into the game (they're coming soon) so there's no way to view the stats of any of the combatants or the weapons. Given the air combat is now based more heavily on percentages like Hit Chance, Evade Chance, Range etc this means it's still largely unplayable unless someone has explained what is happening in advance (although reading the changelog below will help a little). Key Features: Air Combat Update: there's been a substantial update to the air combat. The new mechanics are explained below in more detail. Alien Psionics: certain ranks of Psyon now have access to the Mind War psionic ability, which they automatically use every turn. The mechanics are a bit different from the X1 psionics and are explained in full below. Soldier Assignment System: there's now a central soldier management system that ensures soldiers can only be assigned one task at a time (e.g. if they're on a Strategic Operation, you can't then deploy them in combat). Strategy Upkeep / Funding Screen: your personnel, aircraft and base structures now have upkeep costs. You can now access a preview of the Funding Screen from the Geoscape at any point, which also gives a breakdown of all of your predicted income and upkeep costs. Crash Site Airstrike: the "airstrike" functionality from X1 that allows you to receive a cash bonus in exchange for removing a crash site from the Geoscape has now returned. New Artwork: we've added new art to various screens. This includes everything from strategy screen backgrounds and new UFO artwork to additional alien combatant models and new energy weapon projectiles. More Alien Variants: the crews of alien ships are now more varied, with each alien race now have multiple unit variants like in X1 (i.e. not every alien is a generic soldier, so some of a UFO crew will be lightly-armed non-combatants that fly the UFO etc). There's also Elite aliens with better equipment that start appearing later in the game. Air Combat Update: Air combat now auto-resolves rather than requiring you to issue all commands manually, which makes interceptions much faster and less fiddly Your interceptors have AI that will automatically attempt to close to the appropriate range with the UFOs and fire weapons, but the player can also manually issue orders if they choose Weapons will auto-fire if the interceptor is range, but fire permission can be toggled off by clicking the weapon icon on the new interceptor status panels on the right of the screen. Weapons now have % hit chances, and combatants have a % evade chance. The weapon first rolls to hit, and then if a hit is scored the defender rolls to see if they can evade. Weapons also have an Evade Modifier which controls how easy they are to evade. Torpedoes are powerful but have a 2x Evade modifier, making them ineffective against Fighter UFOs that have 50% base Evade score (giving them a modified 100% Evade vs torpedoes). However, they are much more effective against cumbersome UFOs like Destroyers which have a base 0% Evade score and are unable to dodge even the slowest weapons. Alien Psionics: Alien psionics are now in the game in the form of the Mind War ability, which several types of Psyon and the Praetor-equivalent possess. Each alien with the Mind War ability will cast it against a random Xenonaut each turn. Line of sight is not required but each Xenonaut can only be hit once per turn. All Xenonauts affected by Mind War are flagged at the start of the player's turn. At the end of the player's turn, Mind War is resolved. This is done by comparing the Psionic Strength of the attacker to the Bravery of the defender, along with a random element that is added to each. If the attacker is successful, the Xenonaut is panicked and will drop their weapon and flee. If the attacker beats the defender by more than 30, the attacker scores a critical success and the Xenonaut is instead Mind Controlled. The defender will receive a bonus to their Bravery equal to their Bravery multiplied by their remaining % of TU - so if you don't spend any TU on a soldier, they will receive twice their normal Bravery in the defence roll. Strategy: General - we've added a central soldier management system that ensures soldiers can only be assigned one task at a time (e.g. if they're on a Strategic Operation, you can't then deploy them in combat). General - there are now monthly upkeep costs for your staff, aircraft and base structures. These are deducted from your monthly funding each time it is received. General - there's new strategy / air combat art for four of the early-game UFOs General - UFOs now contain a wider range of possible races, and each race has a larger number of possible variants with different weapons and armour General - we've added support for sorting items in the Research Projects / Engineering Projects / Base Stores list General - added a little more writing for some of the early-game research reports General - prevented saves occurring while the game performing tasks that would break saves (this fixes a bug where users would end up with corrupted saves) Geoscape - a preview of the funding screen can now be accessed at any time, showing your predicted funding per region and also giving you a breakdown of the upkeep costs of your organisation Geoscape - the X1 "Airstrike" functionality has been added to the game, allowing you to pass on doing a crash site mission and receive cash instead (if a Crash Site times out without you completing it, you're automatically granted the airstrike cash) Geoscape - Strategic Operations now take less time to complete if you assign more personnel to them Geoscape - clicking near multiple interactive objects will now give you a pop-up allowing you to specify which object you'd like to select, as it did in X1 Geoscape - landed UFOs now function correctly, although right now there's no difference between a crashed and landed UFO in gameplay terms (there will be in future) Geoscape - there's been some visual changes, with an updated layout more akin to X1 and some new art. Geoscape - Alien Bases now start undetected and can either be detected passively (you have an increasing % chance each day to detect the base), or can be detected by flying an interceptor over the base Geoscape - Infiltrator markers spawned onto the Geoscape by Alien Bases now spawn in same region as the base Geoscape - hovering over a region now displays the region name and the Relations score rather than the "health bar" that we had in previous versions Geoscape - lines in the log are now linked to the events on the Geoscape like it was in X1 (i.e. hovering over a log message should highlight the appropriate object on the Geoscape, etc) Geoscape - improved the performance when there are multiple UFOs flying around at high speed Geoscape - the notification you receive when completing a base structure now correctly displays the building name, not simply "." Geoscape - fixed the Bomber UFO icon being inverted Personnel - Soldiers still appear in your personnel list immediately after being hired, but their status is now set to be In Transit for 3 days. Personnel - Soldiers now have starting stats ranging from 35-65 in each attribute, rather than 45-55 Soldier Equip - soldier medals are now visible. This system needs some additional work before it is finished, but the (placeholder) medals that currently exist are working. Soldier Equip - clicking the soldier portrait now allows you to change the soldier in that slot Dropship Equip - this screen is now capable of supporting additional types of dropship with different troop capacities and so works slightly differently now: The soldier portraits are now shown in a horizontal row beneath the dropship and are numbered by hotkey, and they no longer re-order themselves when you move units around in the dropship. Holding down shift when you move a soldier icon over another soldier icon around will swap the hotkeys of those two soldiers. Hovering the mouse over a soldier portrait will light up their soldier icon, making it a little easier to see which icon belongs to which soldier. The soldier assignment menu now marks the soldiers that are already assigned to the dropship. Ground Combat: Specific ground combat items now recover items on the strategy layer (assuming they survive). The UFO power cores are now the only source of Alenium in the game, so be careful not to blow them up! UFO crash site maps are now roughly 50x50 for all UFOs rather than expanding in size as the game goes on - clearing a bigger UFO is already much more time consuming than a smaller UFO, so also enlarging the map as well made for very long missions. The Overwatch toggles on the new GC UI now work correctly for each weapon (so you can disable the Primary weapon if you want to reaction fire with the Secondary instead, etc) Reloading weapons manually in the ground combat soldier inventory should now have the same effect as the quick reload button in all instances We've redesigned several of the UFOs, updated their interior layouts and added a number of new props Two new armoured elite Psyon variants have been added to the late game Added new projectiles and impact effects for the Plasma and Fusion energy weapons Fixed a number of animation issues for the humans and Psyons (made shooting snappier, fixed some flickering in the run cycle, etc) Laser Weapons now have updated inventory artwork Alien Magnetic Pistol and Alien Fusion Pistol now have 3D models A number of visual updates on the Farm biome Civilians now have more biome-appropriate clothing, although they are still placeholder Some improvements to the roof-hiding system, although there is more to do here Some improvements to the way the camera tracks alien activity during the alien turn, although there is also more to do here Bugfix - Terror missions should no longer freeze at 99% loading Bugfix - fixed a hang where you couldn't complete a mission if one of your soldiers was stunned Bugfix - fixed several mis-set assets, including train cars that units could walk into and some windows that could not be seen through Bugfix - fixed some missing move tiles Bugfix - fixed an issue with C4 giving the player multiple detonation crosshairs with incorrect detonation costs Bugfix - fixed a bug where crouched units would appear to be standing if you loaded a save game
  6. 4 points
    Hello everyone - we've just gone into June and there's not been much news coming out of Goldhawk HQ recently, so I thought I'd write a quick forum update to keep everyone informed about our progress. We released our last update just over two weeks ago, which was a big hotfix for Closed Beta V5 and fixed quite a few of the stability issues we had in V5. Since then we've moved back to adding content and features to the game. We've already finished up a few features that will be in the next update such as the Crash Site airstrike mechanic that was in the original Xenonauts, the recovery of strategic items from specific ground combat tiles (e.g. a UFO Power Core grants you Alenium unless you destroy it), and the soldier management system that means you can no longer assign soldiers to multiple tasks that should be mutually exclusive (being in an airborne dropship, being on a Strategic Operation, being wounded, etc.) However, we're also starting work on some bigger tasks. We're updating the Air Combat to make it deeper but at the same time less fiddly - we're doing this by adding some new mechanics, but automating a lot of the clicking the current air combat requires you to do. Although you can pause the combat and issue your interceptors detailed manual orders if you choose, the new model of the air combat will automatically play itself out in the same way that the air combat in the original Xenonauts did. However, as the combat is now turn-based there's less reliance on split-second timing on your pauses. Anyway, I'll explain all the changes in more detail when the next major update arrives! As you can see from the example above, we're also working on adding new art to the game. In recent months we've brought on some new freelancers to start painting up the final art assets for the game and this is starting to bear fruit. These are some of the final art assets that are working through the pipeline: Strategic UFO Artwork Strategic UI Backgrounds (in full 21:9 glory) Weapon Inventory Art Alien Autopsy & GC Corpse Art Soviet Town terror maps This is being coupled to some new gameplay content as well. We've created some new props for the UFO interiors so they're more interesting to play through, and I've updated the UFO crews so there's a better sense of progression through the game - the alien crews get bigger and better equipped as time goes on, and once the larger UFOs start appearing you could be facing Psyons, Sebillians, Wraiths or Androns each time a combat mission spawns. The balancing isn't final by any means but it's another step closer to being finished. I've also taken some inspiration from what we did in X1 with the UFO crews, and added several new variants of each alien. For instance, there are now unarmoured Sebillian non-combatants (pilots / engineers / etc) that spawn inside UFOs and only have pistols, rather than every Sebillian being a well-equipped soldier. This process is more complete for some races than others (the Androns in particular are short on variation) but once some of the new alien variant models start appearing I think we'll have a more varied set of aliens than we did in the first game. We'll also hopefully have a bit more of the writing done by the time the next major build arrives. The tech tree is starting to solidify and I'll be starting to put more attention into the research reports now we have more idea of how things might slot together in the final game. There's some other cool things in the works but I'm starting to run out of space so I'll save them for the update announcement. Sorry for the lack of communications on the forums recently; unfortunately I've just been working too hard to spare the time!
  7. 4 points
    Greetings all, A little preface here on relative skill level: The issues I want to talk about get more obvious and more of an issue the better a player is, hence this preface. This is sort of an inverse of "Get gud". However, it may appear I am asking to make the game easier in general, that is not the case. I would like the game to be harder if anything, but at the end where it makes sense for it to be hard and not at the beginning where it doesn't. More on that later... A note on my own skill level: I've completed pretty much every decent strategy game on the hardest possible difficulty, that includes games like: XCOM (The originals, terror from the deep excepted as I never got into it), XCOM (The Remakes), Jagged Alliance (even the awful reloaded one), Panzer General, Peoples General, etc. Also, some hard realtime stuff like EUIV (One-tagged the world), Shogun II total war (Impossible Ironmanned it), etc. I also have a youtube where I do hardest possible turn based Ironman campaigns, though that is mostly battletech. If your interested in that or simply want to verify, you can find it at www.youtube.com/TheEdmon and I hope you enjoy it :). My two key issues with XCOM type games are thus: 1) In the early game no-one seems to know there is a war on and it determines everything. 2) Win-More, Lose-More gameplay. The early game: Most of these turns based games are won in the first 6-10 hours and the rest of the game is just a walk to the victory screen, provided you don't make some critical mistake. But if you are winning hard enough, early enough, the odds of a critical mistake drops: 1) You win early missions with no losses and get more stuff. 2) So you have more money to expand, upgrade and research faster, with no losses to replace. 3) You are powering faster than the difficulty curve due to the above and can afford more coverage (when applicible). 4) You win more easily, due to your powering, which leads to less/no future losses and more money. 5) The cycle repeats, with your A-Team carrying you to the victory screen often without any losses at all. Dont you know there is a war on? The early XCOM game has this weird tone, situational as well as gameplay issue. You start off weak, barely any better or the same as a standard military of the time period. Then the game pretends like other militaries don't exist or are unable to mount even the slightest defence. So, where you are and what coverage you can get early is all that matters. This means that (often randomly), the game is determined by how much of the early hostiles appear near you (so you can deal with them) and is a race for you to power up as quickly as possible so you can protect the earth. The game balance revolves around this, making it so that you can get more ahead very quickly because you are 100% of the force being exerted against the aliens. That 100% can be vastly different between a good player and an excellent one, let alone a weaker casual player. You are totally and 100% critical in the early game, so balancing that early game becomes very difficult. I have always thought a good way to solve this problem would be to have the player be more like 10% of the force in the early game. NPC Military, coverage, airforces, etc. So what if we do this instead: 1) NPC's have military bases, airforces, coverage just like you do. 2) There is a lot more alien activity in the early game, but NPC militaries can barely handle it. The scramble interceptors, shoot down hostiles, airstrike, etc. 3) You can place your base to try and protect a country with a weak military, like africa, or place it where activity is high to protect a stronger NPC so they are useful for longer... The early game then consists of a world at war against the aliens and actually holding it's ground. You are there, to shoot down what appears in your general area, steal technology, go on missions, etc as usual. But you are not 100% of the fight, more like 10% of it. Of course, as the game goes on, your technology improves and so does the aliens. But your human allies do not. So in the mid game, they start to lose and some very badly: 1) You can see NPC bases and interceptons getting crushed. 2) Gaps appear in earths defence, relations sour. 3) It becomes clear that you must fill in the gaps, protect your allies, etc. You can afford to make the general alien presence that much more, when there is a lot of NPC defence around to handle it. Taking the pressure off the early game. In the late game: 1) NPC presence is all but gone, now it's all down to you. 2) Difficulty can be much higher 3) You've had time to put coverage in place, but the pressure you are under can also be higher than in a normal XCOM like difficulty curve. In conclusion: The early game matters too much, player skill level cannot effectively be balanced for, due to the snowballing effect that is caused by the player being 100% of the force against the aliens. The tone is also odd, where is everyone else, don't they know there is a war going on? My thought is to try and shift this to the mid game, while also fixing the weird lore and tonal issues. What do you guys think?
  8. 4 points
    I don't think we'd be given the chance to have that kind of deal, even if we wanted it - we're not as sexy a game as Phoenix Point, who have already signed a lot of deals with various parties for a lot more money than we have. So I doubt there's any risk of us ever becoming an Epic exclusive!
  9. 3 points
    After more than two weeks we've decided to close the poll about our X2 Base Mechanics. The results were as follows: The voting pattern for this survey stayed fairly consistent from the very early stages of the voting up to the current level of nearly 2,000 responses: 50% were in favour of the old X1 mechanics, 40% thought the developer should make the decision, and 10% were in favour of the current X2 system. As the stated position of the developers is that switching back to the old X1 system would be better, the results overwhelmingly support the old X1 mechanics over the current X2 ones. As such, we're planning to immediately start work on implementing the old multiple-base system with the goal of getting it functional before we launch into Early Access. The specifics of the system will be as follows: All bases will have a construction grid upon which you can build base structures All bases can house aircraft and radars We will support X1-style base defence missions where you fight in a battle in a replica of your base, barring any unforeseen technical issues that prevent this The X2 system where you can assign scientists / engineers to specific buildings will be retained Dropships will fly around the map like they do in X1, and can carry out multiple missions in sequence (and be shot down) etc Your organisation will be able to build multiple dropships Staff and items will be global resources, so you can assign your staff to structures in any of your bases and your soldiers to any dropship The decision to make staff and items global is not necessarily our final decision on the matter, but we're going to see how the global setup plays before we make any further decisions. Making staff and items specific to each base is going to require a lot of coding time, is going to force the addition of a lot of new UI, and is going to react in an uncertain way with several game mechanics we're still experimenting with (like Strategic Operations). We'll therefore be making a decision on that issue later in development once we have a better feel for how it will affect gameplay. I hope the 10% of people that voted for the X2 mechanics don't feel too let down by this change, and I apologise if anyone bought the game on the premise that it would have the X2 base mechanics only to find they are now getting a game with the X1 base mechanics instead. Really, all I can say is that having tested both models I genuinely feel like the X1 mechanics are the best choice for the game. Thanks for reading!
  10. 3 points
    @stewpidbear Depends upon the budget for art assets, I'd say. I can recover items from downed fighters as a Strategic Op. To minimise UI management, could the same be done for ordinary UFOs? You still get the option for getting a fixed amount immediately, or you can assign agents to oversee the cutting up of the UFO, and get a bonus to the artifacts rcovered, or possibly unique artifacts as a reward. Narratively, it could be described as either letting the funding bloc the ufo crashed in do most of the grunt work in removing the ufo, and paying a tithe in the form of alien artifacts tto the funding bloc, or assigning your own teams supervised by an agent - each agent assigned represents a Xenonauts team. I mean, is there any artwork for engineers/scientists that could be used so you can send engineers and/or scientists off to recover a UFO? That wold give people the option for complexity without having it forced upon them, similar to being able to airstrike a downed UFO instead of having to GC every ufo you come across.
  11. 3 points
    The original Xenonauts lived up to the original XCOM and surpassed it notably in a superior air combat section and better art direction while preserving the best parts of the ground combat and discarding the chaff. I had hoped that Xenonauts 2 would surpass it even further, especially visually, in one of the biggest selling points was the new 3D game engine. What was already a beautifully realized game, I thought backing it would have resulted in something of a refinement rather than steps backwards and now I regret trusting them to stick to their original vision and instead give into a few noisy individuals. Instead we're treated to generic tetris-looking 'ships' rendered as alien storage units landing on earth. While you may have wanted UFO wall breaching, there's no reason to include it at all. It certainly does not improve the game play, despite what a vocal minority would have us believe. This is coming someone who bought the original game in 2012 when it was still in early access, played about 250+ hours of the original, CE and Xdivision combined. (Which I admit, doesn't make me the most veteran of players, but I think after that period of time I know what I like.) The original was nearly perfect. It was exactly what it needed to be and fit the vision of a spiritual remake of the original game as well as updating it to more modern mechanical and design sensibilities. The way Xenonauts 2 looks is a step backwards from the original, which I find very disappointing. There are things I like about X2, mostly the update to a modern time (I liked the Cold War thing too, but this is a fresh take on it.) and the new engine (Aside from the awful UFOs the rest looks really good. Though, to be a bit nitpicky, I kind of liked the old Ceseans. They weren't Sectoids which was a nice change, though I'm sure more visual distinction won out in the end which I fully appreciate.) Ultimately, I could have probably dealt with the air combat being boring, but what drew me to Xenonauts originally was the aesthetic. Everything worked together so well that even if there were weird LOS bugs or situations where it felt like you got shot through a wall, it wasn't a big deal because the whole experience was so put together. Now it looks like placeholder graphics were left in the game and frankly, it looks jarring and cheap when you see them in any context. Some people perhaps don't think that matters because as long as they get to explode the walls of the alien storage sheds with high explosives, they will be happy. Unfortunately, we went from very impressive looking designs to chasing down and trying to shoot down flying U-haul lots so you can invade them and play a very violent version of Storage Wars with the occupants. Aesthetics are important. That's the reason the Empire from Star Wars is so popular. Can you imagine people thinking the Empire is cool if the ships were just big rubix's cubes or flying tiles? It would probably drag down the appeal of the entire franchise. It would be like playing Doom or something and they replaced the Imps with pixelated Pac Man ghosts. No explanation for it. They're just there and you gotta kill them. Defenders come on and say that their big problem with Doom was the lack of 2D enemies because that's what was in the old game. Frankly, it just looks stupid and I'm finding myself wanting to just go play Phoenix Point or stick with CE and Xdivision. I know at some point a design decision was made to scrap the original UFO designs because you really wanted to accommodate players like stewpidbear who really wanted hull breaching and the simplest way to do that was to make flying plates of alienium brownies. I can tell you though, that there are players like me who thought the way UFOs were done in the original was perfectly fine and frankly think hull breaching is not only an unnecessary mechanic but one that reduces the enjoyment of the experience. What do I mean? When you design a dungeon (which is essentially what a UFO is) you can make decisions about cover layout, entries and exits. Enemy positions. When you allow anyone to just blow any wall down, most of that changes. If you follow a rule in which the layouts make logical sense (I.E. Do not assume your hull wall is worthless because it will be breached) then there will become an optimal entry point to any UFO, which at that point, means that you might as well just make that the assumed door for design and balance. If you chose to gamify it further than you have, then you would make the inside of a UFO equally protective towards any potential entrance, thus invalidating the entire point of breaching the hull. From a design and gameplay perspective, I just don't see any reason to include it if you have to sacrifice style and visual consistency. I want to end this by saying that I know you guys have put a lot of work into this and I do feel a bit bad tearing you down when I know you've spent the last 5 years on this. My reaction is out of love for what Xenonauts is and what Xenonauts 2 could be. I love most of what you've done, but these things, for me are dealbreakers. Who knows, maybe I'm the only one who feels this way, and if so, carry on. Thanks for making the original game and bringing me and many others so much enjoyment.
  12. 3 points
    This is the heartwarming developer story of Space Pirates and Zombies, an Indie game with a quality which is beyond AAA level in terms of actual gameplay. Enjoy. https://www.minmax-games.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=3152&sid=00c24490c435faad69a4295f43b253a4
  13. 3 points
    Teleportation was a solution to the terrible 1-base decision, since you had to reach every apart of the globe from 1 location. If multi-bases are in, then teleportation is not needed. I despise teleportation, not only because of narrative and world-building reasons and the the massive can of worms it opens, but because of the mechanical implications. (Also, Stargate turned to trash, the only thing saving it was good cast chemistry and banter. And the elder race tropes are in my opinion generally terrible - anything that treats science as magic is) X-Com games have NOT been just about squad-level tactics. If that is what one is after, there are many games that do it a LOT better (Jagged Alliance 2 for example). Planning and logistics on a grander scale are - to me - the defining aspect of X-Com. Hence, when such is trivilized with magitech teleportation that makes logistic utterly irrelevant (base location does not matter, travel time does not matter, local resource managment does not matter) it leaves a poor taste in my mouth. Also, having a single base, a single point of faliure is a really bad idea for any military group.
  14. 3 points
    Yeah, so this discussion sort of explains why we shouldn't try to implement multiple dropships right now - we need to nail down exactly what that means first. If the personnel that can be assigned to the dropship remain global, multiple dropships becomes a far simpler task (in some ways it's actually easier than having to special-case the existence of a single dropship but still allow it to be replaced if shot down etc), but I'm not sure everyone would consider that a valid implementation.
  15. 3 points
    I agree with Bobit. I can't really wrap my head around why it would be good to limit the player to one dropship. First of all, the possibility for multiple dropships exists in X1 already (and is useful in X-Division at least), second I want to lead a global (para-)military unsurgency operation, not a squad of comically overpowered popcorn cinema heros like in FiraXCOM, and multiple cells are definitely part of this, third I always find it bad if my decision space is artificially limited, and fourth it may make it harder for modders to take that limitation out again, so why not just allow it in the first place? The rest sounds sensible though. Energy need as a limiting factor for base growth sounds good, but I would also be okay with an energy-less system like X1, where money and the base size were limiting you. If the energy system does something unique there, go for it.
  16. 3 points
    Today we're releasing a second hotfix for Beta Build V4 from last week - there were quite a few crashes left in the game so we've taken a bit of time out to fix the worst offenders. Hopefully this will be a much more stable experience for everyone to enjoy. Changelog: Fixed a crash that would occur at the end of the first turn of any combat mission that contained an alien with a shield, as the AI previously wasn't set up to handle it. Fixed a crash that occurs at the end of a ground combat mission (this was related to the soldier fatigue system we'll be introducing soon). Fixed a crash that would occur if you took a Laser Rifle or Laser Shotgun into battle (turns out I'd accidentally set these to regenerate HP rather than ammo). Fixed an issue where the soldier assignment list for Strategic Operations would not display correctly on non-16:9 screen resolutions. Fixed an issue where aliens would sometimes go into a T-pose for a few seconds when crouching or uncrouching. If a soldier is killed in battle, their slot now remembers their equipment so you can easily replace them with someone new. Personnel screen should now show the correct TU values for soldiers, rather than the values they had at the end of the last turn on their previous mission. Added a missing move path preview tile for a soldier making a diagonal move onto the bottom of a ladder. I think those three crashes accounted for most of the crashes people were experiencing in the game, but please let us know if you experience more crashes. I'd rather not spend any more time on hotfixes unless there's more big crashes we don't know about... but we'll see what bug reports come in and make a judgement on that. Incidentally, the bug reports over the past week or so have been really helpful - we added a lot of content in this build and it wasn't practical for me to test it all, so it's been great having you guys keeping us informed on what doesn't work properly
  17. 3 points
    It'd be best to hold off on any judgements for a while longer, as the two areas you're talking about (the base and the air combat) are the areas where we've not yet implemented our ideas in full or playtested them very much. We'll be discussing the base mechanics in more detail with the next update in 2-3 weeks.
  18. 2 points
    I think "strategic operations" are one of the most interesting ideas we have in Xenonauts 2, and if handled well I think they have the potential to make the Geoscape feel far deeper and better connected than it did in the first game. I'll start by explaining the basic parts of the system: Strategic Operations are points of interest that exist on the Geoscape You can send your soldiers to these points of interest in order to resolve the situation (the operation is handled automatically; you don't manually fight a battle) You then gain some kind of reward for completing the operation Soldiers assigned to a Strategic Operation cannot do anything else while out on the operation A very simple example of a Strategic Operation is a "recruit staff" operation, where you can dispatch soldiers to a particular location in order to "recruit" (i.e. kidnap) some scientists or engineers to join your organisation. The operation takes two days and at the end of it you can choose whether you would like to receive two scientists or two engineers back at your base. That system forms the basis of a strategic operation, but there's a lot that can be done to expand and improve them. I'll give some of my ideas below and I'd like to hear the thoughts and suggestions of the community too! Geoscape Interaction: The example I gave above is the most simple form of reward - giving the player resources like personnel, or items, or money, or research / ENDGAME progress. However I think there's scope for incorporating some of the "behind the scenes" Geoscape effects into strategic operations instead. For example, you currently receive a few Alien Alloys when you shoot down a UFO that doesn't spawn a crash site (e.g. a Fighter UFO). Instead, these UFOs could spawn wreckage on the Geocscape and you only get those items when you physically send someone there to collect them. The same could apply to your own aircraft; your interceptors could be relatively cheap to replace but if they get shot down then their advanced weapons (and potentially the pilot if we decide aircraft should gain experience) might need to be recovered from the Geoscape before you can use them again. We can also move some of the alien invasion effects to Strategic Operations. Certain alien missions inflict Relations damage on funding regions to reflect the way that they are deploying infiltrators in that region, and in the first Xenonauts the alien bases cause a continual Relations drain in the local region. Instead, these missions could periodically spawn Infiltrator strategic operations on the map that provide say a -10 Relations penalty in the region while they exist. This has the same effect except the Relations loss wouldn't be permanent - a player can send a team to neutralise those Infiltrators at any point. You might even have a dedicated team specialized for killing Infiltrators rather than actually fighting battles. Those are the sort of ideas that make me feel quite excited about the potential of the idea; hopefully you guys can see some of the appeal too? Do you have any ideas of your own? Geography: I'm keen to tie the strategic operations into the positioning of your facilities on the Geoscape, so we've incorporated a basic "travel time" system that is added to the duration of the mission based on the distance to the closest Xenonaut base. This means choosing which strategic operations to complete is not simply a question of picking the ones with the best reward, but weighing the travel time to and from the operation against the reward. This would add another dimension to your base construction choices; even a base with no interceptors is potentially useful if it makes the nearby strategic operations easier to access. Skill Checks & Success Rolls: Currently the strategic operations succeed automatically, so one of the obvious improvements is to have various success / fail states and allow the number and quality of the staff you assign to a mission to influence how likely you are to get the results you want. One thing that I really liked in XCOM2: War of the Chosen was that it provides you with resistance operations that offer useful rewards in exchange for making you send one of your best soldiers away for a couple of weeks - which forces you to rotate your combat team or make hard decisions about whether you can actually afford to spare that soldier. There's quite a lot of different ways we can handle skill checks, and lots of different metrics we can factor into the calculation - the number of soldiers, their individual stats (e.g. Accuracy), their experience, etc. We can have the team affect the success chance of the mission or the duration of the mission, or both, and set minimum requirements for pretty much anything we want. It's just a question of finding which system would work best for the game. Of course, different missions can have different skill checks too. Perhaps the Infiltrator missions mentioned above might require Accuracy in order to succeed, whereas recovering UFO Wreckage might not have a skill check but might go faster if you send more people (irrespective of their skills) and so forth. Incidentally, in Xenonauts 2 your scientists and engineers are treated as personnel in just the same way that your soldiers are - so we can consider designs that allow or encourage you to deploy scientists and engineers on these strategic operations too. Balance & Limitations: The final thing to talk about is how we limit the strategic operations so the player has to make choices about which operations to do and which not to do. Right now the only limitation is those soldiers are not able to take part in ground combat (and even this restriction is bugged and doesn't currently work), so it's pretty easy to circumvent it by building an extra Living Quarters and recruiting like 10 additional soldiers, as soldiers are very cheap. I've got a few ideas on ways we can add some limitations: As mentioned above, requiring experienced soldiers means you can't just brute force every operation with a horde of new recruits We could require each team sent to a strategic operation to require a small helicopter, so you'd need to have one helicopter at the local base for each operation you were running. These helicopters would fill the same hangars that your interceptors could use, so in some ways you would have the balance the number of interceptors you have against the number of strategic operations you want to run at any given time. I'm open to further ideas here, or on any of the ideas outlined above. Basically I think this is a really exciting idea but there's quite a lot of things to consider before we get something that delivers on that promise. What do you guys think?
  19. 2 points
    Not that I expect this to be implemented, but theoretically shouldn't the birds be taking off within a round or two of dropping off the troops? That's an awful big and expensive target to be sitting on the ground in the middle of a fire zone for an extended period of time? Personally, I'd like the idea of having gunners on the transport that could provide support fire while the troops debarked and then force the transport to take off by the third or 4th round regardless of whether the troops were fully debarked or not. I'd also like the transport to be targetable and damageable by the Aliens. All that's probably a little more hardcore then what the Dev's are interested in however. Alternatively, if these really are clandestine, low intensity missions.... shouldn't the troops be getting dropped off some safe distance away...and enter the mission zone on foot? Maybe enter the mission Xcom2 style? I know that's probably not as popular a choice as having the transport on the map, but thematically it might make more sense for covert style missions.
  20. 2 points
    Im sorry but i have to speak up for the truth. It is not only possible to make make any part in the late X1 system destructible, but also easily so. Option 1. Make predefined holes. This is the easiest example and looks kinda like this: Option 2: You can cut unique UFO art into a per-tile basis. This would require a manual, human eye to define where the art overlaps with which tiles. Then you can piece the art together in the submap editor. In the end this means you can make and define each and every tile to have an undamaged, damaged with hole, or completely blasted away state. This is a very work intensive option, but still only a question of manhours. All of that is so easily achievable that i can already do that in the X1 editor. Give me 2 additional men and 50 manhours and i will make all vanilla UFOs with predefined breach points. Give me 3 men and 300 manhours and i will make every single tile of every vanilla UFO breachable. The only issue i see with this is that when you hover over a UFOhull part only single parts are getting transparent and/or highlighted. This would need some hardcoded support to define UFOhull(s) as one part with a IF(UFOhull part gets highlighted,highlight connected UFOhull part, Nothing), otherwise parts highlighted look a bit "blocky". Im not desputing that the UFO art in X2 is final, and i am fond of completely destructible environments. Just pointing out that a hybrid approach is totally feasible, if decided on early enough. I realise its too late in the development to make a hybrid approach, but if the X2 editor is as powerful as the X1 one, and publicly available, modders can just make unique UFOs themself. Keep it up Chris
  21. 2 points
    Heh - yeah, literally all that is required to make a decent and interesting air combat system is a few hours of reading. Why did I never think of doing that?
  22. 2 points
    When it comes to base defense missions, it's a feature I care the least about. You could make a battle outside of the base or a simple attack mechanics (e.g. power of attack/defense and assessing losses). Sometimes a UFO could land nearby and those would be like missions with higher difficulty levels. There are so many more important features that I wouldn't even know which to start with. Thus, I think adding this functionality would be a waste of time.
  23. 2 points
    This is honestly the first time I've ever written a topic on this forum so forgive me for any inconvenience I might do. Idea: In the first Xenonauts game your interaction with your squadrons was merely maintenace and logistical services (such as re-arming or exchanging armament, decommissioning aircraft and obviously purchasing and researching new types of aircraft). What if you were able to interact with the pilots of the interceptors themselves, just like a regular soldier, each pilot belonging to the Xenonauts project would have their own feed and info such as names, nationalities, past military services and so on, but pilots could have their own set of skills and capabilities for the commander to take in consideration, some of these could be awareness, vitality (or endurance), survival and cunning. So, would pilots come as more of a challenge or benefit to the player? Well it would be a mix of both, having unique pilots with different pasts and personalities would challenge your capability of management and taking advantage of those same personalities during interceptions, a commander that is capable of selecting the correct individual for the specific task has an advantage over any other aircraft in the air, but it is this same individuality and instability that might pose as an obstacle for less "seasoned" commanders who were used to similar aircraft with exactly the same statistics. What would be the assessments and dangers of having fully interactive, individual pilots? Well to start off, there can be as many skilled pilots as there can be incapable individuals, it is up to the commander to see which skills are more important for his/hers fighting style, pilots would also occupy space in the barracks just as any other regular soldier; there would also be the "unfortunate" instance of brilliant pilots dying due to a streak of bad luck or just a mission that wasn't well planned, but sometimes pilots could survive a crash landing and this could bring a good opportunity for a new type of ground mission, search and rescue. To finish this off, I'd just like to thank all who took their precious time to read my suggestion and I'm sorry if I committed any mistakes regarding the template of the topic or the fact that I might've accidentally mentioned something that someone else already said. Addenum 1: Skills? Awareness: Situational awareness is actually a skill that should be practiced by the player him/herself, but again... Pilots would be required to be extremely perceptive of the environment surronding them and dictate the future of the decisions and options they might take while conducting a mission, pilots with high awareness would be able to dodge and take evasive maneuvers faster than other pilots. Vitality (or endurance): Pilots should take intensive training regularly, individuals unfit to the task wouldn't be able to resist as much shock and G force as trained pilots would. This skill dictates the pilot's chance of survival in case his aircraft is shot down. Survival: Survival training will guarantee the pilot's capability of self management and tending to personal needs in an hostile environment, not to mention that the pilot will most likely be hunted down by search parties conducted by the enemy, thus revealing a catastrophic scenario of capture or even death. A pilot's survival skill would determine the time he would be able to survive alone in an hostile environment until he is rescued. Cunning (optional): At last, a pilot should be an example of ingenuity and wisdom, either from tunning with his own aircraft to meet his needs and extend the efficiency of it's systems to the capability of saving fuel during flight. Addenum 2: Downed pilots? Yes, there would be a chance of survival of your pilot if his/her interceptor was shot down by alien craft, this would be determined by the vitality skill or just a random chance. After the pilot was downed, the player would have the option of risking his men to conduct a rescue operation on the pilot's known crash site, just like a regular mission the player's squad would spawn in a corner of the map and scout the crash site looking for the downed pilot, depending on how fast the player managed to conduct this operation would determine how many enemies are present on the map, the player's objective would be looking for the remainders of the downed aircraft expecting the pilot to be nearby, if the player managed to find the pilot there could be two situations: situation 1, the pilot would be in a good health condition and able to return back to the helicopter by himself or controlled by the player, the pilot would have a pistol for self defense and his/her skills in combat would be randomly generated (so pray for good AP). situation 2, the pilot would be in a critical state requiring the player to carry him/her back to the helicopter.
  24. 2 points
    Xenonauts-2 was originally scheduled for launch into Early Access towards the end of this month, but after reviewing our progress and the current state of the game we've decided to push this back by approximately three months (although it could be longer than that) because we simply don't feel the game is ready for Early Access yet. How does this affect you? We've taken a number of steps to ensure that this does not affect our community too much. Let's talk about them first: The first group of people affected by this change are the £18 Kickstarter backers who are not part of the Closed Beta and were due to receive their keys when the game launched into Early Access. We'll simply be sending these people their Steam / GOG keys at the end of this month as promised and inviting them to join the extended Closed Beta, so this change should not affect them at all. The second group of people are those who missed the Kickstarter and want to buy the game. We're strongly considering selling the game through Xsolla until the Early Access launch, and anyone that purchases the game on Xsolla will get immediate access to the Closed Beta on Xsolla and then also receive a Steam / GOG key as soon as we hit Early Access. If you're already part of the Closed Beta nothing will change. We'll continue pushing out updates to the beta on Steam and GOG as before. The reason why we have to do things like this is because (with the exception of one-off events like Kickstarters), Steam will not allow you to sell Steam access to a game until that game is actually on sale on Steam. So we can run the closed beta on Xsolla and then generate Steam keys for all our existing backers as soon as we launch into Early Access, but non-Kickstarter backers can't get access to the Steam / GOG beta until we start selling the game on those services. Why have we chosen to delay the Early Access launch? The point of the Closed Beta is to get the game into a state where it is playable and we're not quite there yet. There's a few big expected features that are missing (e.g. the ability to save in the ground combat) and quite a few of the mechanics are so rough that people are instinctively going to have a negative reaction to them (e.g. the unfinished air combat implementation). This is mostly a problem because of Steam Reviews. We know large sections of the game need more work and we've already got much of that work planned out, we've just not had a chance to do it yet - but if someone picks up the game and writes a bad Steam review on the basis of an air combat implementation that is only 30% finished, that review will stick with us and potentially impact our sales for the entire lifetime of the game ... even if the final air combat system ends up being far better than the one in the first Xenonauts when the game is finished. We're not under any massive financial pressure to rush our launch so it makes sense for us to spend some extra time adding the missing features and polishing the game up first. It's a shame to miss our deadlines but you only have to check the beta build changelogs to see how fast progress has been in the last three or four months, so it's really just a case of a game this complicated being a LOT of work. Assuming all goes to plan with Xsolla I'll be posting up an update here and sending out an update to our mailing list / Kickstarter backers when pre-sales become available, so stay tuned!
  25. 2 points
    Yes, Unusually Ruthless Reuban is my brother You're probably playing it wrong. Since you have 8 million starting money, use it. I do it like this: Day 0: First base: build Workshop, Lab, 4 Hangars, Garage, Living quarters. Recruit soldiers, scientists and engineers Build 4 additional bases Day 5: First base: Order 3 Condors and Chinook Day 10: First base: Recruit more scientists and engineers 4 additional bases: build at least 3 Hangars each, 1 Radar each. One base get also Living Quarters and Garage. Day 15: Locate AWACS and Chinook into one additional base. Also some Condors from first base go to one additional base. All those additional bases also buy 1-3 Condors each. Day 20: Radars are ready. From this on, 5 bases with radars so... Stunning Sebillians with sticks only sucks. Use Stun gas and/or Shotguns. Also there is no much need to stun Sebs early, as 5 Caesan guards are enough for 8 Fox armours. Older save from my current campaign: Version: X-Division 1.0.0.10 Difficulty: NG+2 ("Veteran") Date: 9. October (just about when first Terror battleship arrives) Current equipment: HE Alenium rocket*20, Precision laser MK-1*4, Laser pistol MK-1*9, Laser minigun*4, Incendiary grenade *20, Chemical grenade *60, Alenium grenade*40, Fox*8 Special materials count to manufacture all of those: Fox 16 Alloys+32 Light fibre, Laser weapons: Pistol*9, Precision*12, Miniguns*24 Total: 61 Alloys and 32 Light fibre. Not problem at all since capturing Scout gives around 10 Alloys + more from disassembly. So that is very manageable. When it comes to research, I made some compromises. Only Division weapon I have is Heavy machinegun (for Hunter). Concentrating on Lasers, just finished researching Advanced lasers. When it comes to Light fibre count, for 8 Fox armour you would need only 5 stunned Caesan guards. It seems I didn't stun any Sebillians so far. What I wrote is possible with rapid development. Looking back I had 7 bases running on mid November. 9 bases on early January (2 bases are named "Factory" and "Laboratory", those names tell all about them). You may also ask how I could have 9 bases already. Current date is 26. January. I have total 86 Hangars on my bases (aircraft count is less than 40 though). I have shot down every ufo since start of October (except two heavily escorted Landing ships, no need to shot those down anyway). Like I said, if you say what I wrote is not possible, you're playing it wrong.
×