Jump to content

Charon

Members
  • Content count

    2,276
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    75

Charon last won the day on October 8

Charon had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

233 Excellent

7 Followers

About Charon

  • Rank
    Sergeant

Recent Profile Visitors

6,827 profile views
  1. https://www.twitch.tv/videos/497039581?t=01h57m04s One who likes the airgame.
  2. Indeed. Its like making the intersection between people who like spaghetti and aborigines. Not saying they dont exist, but it wouldnt be the biggest group of people. Edt: Here is another guy who cant play the airgame Doesnt somebody think he would appreciate a thought out autoresolve system ? Or literally anything else ? Maybe something that is depending on equipment and luck ? Or i mean replace it with your generic Final Fantasy system, that has been a guaranteed success for fun for decades. Replace the characters with interceptors, and the whatever-it-is with up to 3 UFOs. BAM. Problem solved. Golden Sun is also a good example.
  3. Even if it means to alienate all players who are on the opposite site of your liking, and like topdown shooters for what they are ? There is no solution which everybody likes, you are just advocating to morph a genre into something which it is not. The way better solution for you would have been a round based one, no ? But that chance has come and is gone. Maybe it comes again, but for now we are stuck with a topdown shooter, and removing elements which makes them fun isnt the solution. Skim through your own suggestions and you will see thats all they are doing. Yes, better suggestions all the way. But you are sharing the bed with other people who have something in common. They like Xenonauts Ground Combat and Geoscape. Only in how the they want the airgame to be they differ. Now you are saying "Get all the people who dont have the same taste off the bed." Yes ... if we could just find a solution which pleases everyone ... do you realise it might not exist ? Because no matter how you turn it, people have likes and dislikes. Somebody who doesnt like sports doesnt like most sports. There is no "sports for people who dont like sports". Every genre comes with its basic requirements. And topdown shooter have them too. You cant make a topdown shooter for people who dont like topdown shooter, and still preserve the features for the people who like topdown shooters. Phrase: "This is the best cheese, it contains 0% cheese." Yes, other people have different tastes. They might actually like it. Consider it. Your mindset is that of the strategic one, consider that other people have different tastes. Like 100% of Starcraft 2 players. They appreciate more control over less control. You are judging this based on the X1 meta. But all you are doing is limiting the meta down to rock-paper-scissor and closing the competence level down to your own. Consider that some people actually might do something with it. Something you might have never thought of. The fundamental part of topdownshooters is that you have controll over your plane. Thats where the fun factor comes in. Its the same fun factor a child has when it drive a mini automobil over the carpet. Seeing somebody else doing it isnt quite the same. If this would be a turn based game i wouldnt say something. In fact, i wouldnt even be here. I would leave it up to the people who like turn based aircraft games. But our current direction is that of a topdown shooter, and i dont see the solution in cutting away the things which make a topdown shooter fun and call it a solution. I rather say, ok, a topdown shooter is the current plan, but lets also get the people who dont like it onboard. And the common ground are the effects of aircombat onto the Geoscape. Does anybody notice i want a big discussion about the different kind of results of aircombat ?
  4. I think all of this gets past the point. People like Xenonauts/X-Com because of the Ground Combat. People like Xenonauts/X-Com because of the stratgical decisions on the Geopscape. People dont like Xenonauts because it has a good airgame. If people want a good topdown shooter they buy Nova Drift or Space Pirates and Zombies 1/2 or other games, which make a lot more out of that concept. So why try to bake a medium solution for the part of the game which just acts as an interlink to the content people really want to get to. 2 systems so a maximum amount of people can get to the gaming content for which they are really there. Which is why i am advocating to not put too much emphasis on either the autoresolve system, or the aircombat one, but on the effects these can have on the Geoscape.
  5. Nope i mean 1 button and lots and lots of interesting results. Maybe add a nice video. Thats exactly your suggestion, just that im not forced to watch a 1 minute unskippable cutscene. There is already a autoresolve system in X1. How much work is it to recreate the same function and apply it to a button ? Not saying thats a good solution, i am saying Chris should improve on that system. The work of that system would consist in simulating correctly, in which case we need to know WHAT the possible results are. Which is why i am advocating for an improved system which goes beyond Victory-Defeat. --- Im making the statement that a genre which is fundamentally dexterity based is impossible to make attractive for people who dont like fast mini decisions with time and timing pressure --- The only thing we get if we ask people who dont like topdown shooters is a system without all features that people who enjoy topdown shooters enjoy. You are trying to feed carrots to wolfs. Also, does nobody of you have any fantasy what you could do with an autoresolve system ? I mean look. I have been thinking about this topic for 5 minutes, and you could come up with procedural generated text events and decisions for the player to make. Like "Roll left (45% chance of success 110% total damage) Roll right (80% success), etc ... . Risk - Reward decisions in text form. The freed up resources would come from the fact that Chris doesnt have to make the airgame attractive to people who fundamentally dont like the genre of topdown shooters. People who make suggestions like Yes, take away more control of the player. No hate, just making a case. Love you kabill.
  6. Read the point in the post above about twitch based dexterity skills being fundamentally different to slow strategic decision making. Your paragraphs prove my point better than i could have.
  7. HA. And with that fuel let me make a suggestion. This might cut deep, so bite your teeth. First, here are the basics. The X1 model, and the envisioned upgraded X2 model are called topdown shooters. They are a legitimate game genre, which can stand all on its own. There have been thousands of games like this ever since Space Invaders was released in 1978. From Space Invaders over Star Fox 64 to Nova Drift they are all topdown shooters. What they all have in common is that they reward dexterity based skills and fast decision making. The sum is hundreds of mini twitch decisions each of them are executed in a tiny time window. Strategic thinking on the other hand rewards time consuming decisions with great impact. The characteristic traits of those are unlimited amount of time to think, less strategic decisions, and greater impact for each individual decision. Its not hard to imagine that players who enjoy one of these genres dont enjoy the other. They are fundamental opposites in the smallest amount of measureable player interaction. There is only a tiny fraction of players who like both ( weirdos ), because those 2 fundamental skills talk to 2 very fundamental different destinations in the brain. Everybody here is discussing how to make the perfect medium burger, which doesnt piss of most people, while i see no reason why we cant have 2 perfect rare and well done burgers, instead of 2 medium ones. I find it much more important to discuss the Geoscape-Airgame effects. Like Do we want damageable parts of UFOs ? Do we want to have them have effects in Ground Combat ? What should the effects of escaping UFOs be ? What should the effects of shot down UFOs be ? Random interactions when <incident> happens ?
  8. I think that would be the worst of both worlds. I loathe systems that take away control of the player. If i want to watch a movie i go and watch a movie. If i play a game i want it to be playable. This proposal is the exemplary case of what people who secretly hate the airgame would come up with. Removes all elements they dont like and makes it enjoyable for them. This is why i advocated for a 2 way system from the beginning. Let the people who dont like it have a proper autoresolve system, and make the airgame for people who really like it. Instead of having to force a compromise which is to nobodys taste in the end. Asking people who dont like the airgame is like asking a person who doesnt like cheese to go on a cheese-eating-spree. Guess what they will tell you about it, "It tastes really good, except for the cheese."
  9. I want to point out what people havent pointed out yet. Some people call for the player to have more involvement in the minigame, some call for less. But the most important point is that the complexity of the airgame doesnt exceed the concentration level you need for the Ground Combat. The needed concentration level for the airgame is skilled based, and skill greatly varies from player to player. Skill is a pyramid, there are a lot of people with less skill, and few with great skill. In order to capture the most amount of people the minigame has to have the least skill requirements possible. The question after that is progression and accessibility of difficulty. The progression usually involves the player getting harder and harder challenges in order for them to increase their skill. But the accessbility of the skill level in an X-Com game is horrible. I can join a Starcraft 2 game and the matchmaking gives me an opponent around my own level, but if the skill requirements for the current UFOs is beyond my level i cant go back to easier ones. The result being that the player might loose a 6 hour campaign and has to restart the game, then invest another 5 hours just to get to the same point again. If i loose a Starcraft 2 match to a better player than i learned a lesson which is around my own skill level, my rating drops and next time i will get assigned a less skilled player. Lost time: zero. The minigame becomes the skill bottleneck for the whole game. If you make the game too hard you loose out on the base, and if you make it too easy you will get critique from veteran players. Putting 2 competing skill based games into 1 game is usually not good. One throttles down the other. The usual solution for that is autoresolve. Autoresolve removes the hurdle which keeps the player from getting to the content they actually like. A nice picturesque autoresolve feature ( better than X1 ) is your best bet to avoid people getting tired of the minigame they dont want to play. You can do a lot with autoresolve. Randomise damaged UFO parts, randomised damaged aircraft parts, result range, failure rate, etc ... . Autoresolve lets you focus on the parts you want to show off in your game, without having to worry about a second skill based game throttling down your playerbase.
  10. Charon

    Turn-based all the time - why?

    I can guarantee you that dealing with runners and campers is a very lame experience. Do you know why people in ego-shooters dont like campers ? Exactly. If you get a good position the defender has all the advantages, while the attacker takes all the risks. Thats even more true in a game like Xenonauts where moving up to a position will cost you TU, and in the moment of the encounter you only have 50% of options left. Think about it like a camper camping for 30 seconds, and the first opponent wandering into his zone will be frozen in place for 30 seconds. Thats what it would be. Camping good defensive position and retreating when you are discovered would be the best tactical approach for the aliens, and the worst gameplay experience for the player. If there is a pacing issue, the map is too big, or the aliens too few. In X-Division we solve that problem that we divide every map into 3 distinct phases: 1. Fight on the map 2. Fight to get inside the UFO 3. Fight for the command room That creates a very nice pacing, since the aliens are so aggressive they will sooner or later find you will mean: 1. All aliens on the map will make a fast or slow approach towards you. Which means a firefight until you killed the last alien. 2.Break and safety until you enter the perimeter of the UFO 3. Once you engage the UFO the aliens will defend the UFO while taking maximum advantage of their defensive position (doors, etc ... ) 4. Break until the command room and relative safety. 5. Firefight in (into) the command room. 6. End of mission This creates a nice pace of firefight - break timings, where players mostly know what to expect. One of the core principles in X-Division. This stands in opposition to Xenonauts, where aliens could literally be anywhere and strike anytime. Making the player always having to advance slowly and methodically, which leads to the pacing problem.
  11. Charon

    V8 Balance thread

    I´d vote for local forces and civilians to be treated like any other alien race. That is that you can freely define their stats and create a new rank="localRussian" under race="locals". The map would pull the local numbers in the exact same way X1 did, locals_localrussian_defensive 5. 5 is the number of these kind of units put on the map and defensive is the ( optional ) scirpt. That wouldnt only liven up the modding scene, it would also make it baby easy for Chris to put in whatever unit on whatever special map he wants. In either case all you have to do is supply the model.
  12. I think its more accurate to say that XCE improves on the gameplay while trying to stay as close to the vision of Xenonauts in general. But its definitely a different experience.
  13. This is about the Tactics Ogre: Knight of Lodis emblem system for possible integration into X2 with @Coffee Potato. This is an open discussion. For the people who dont know what we are talking about: http://www.tacticsogre.com/emblems.htm I think the TO: Knight of Lodis system is a very interesting system to be integrated into a turn based tactical system, yet i have my problems with it. I would really like to have a system which makes soldiers more individual based on Combat occurences, but the TO system doesnt seem up to the task. (1) They are not random Every emblem (perk) has precise requirements to be fullfilled. These are not random, nor are they special in any other way. You can grind for them like any other stat point. Its not like you can fail to get them either, if the char dies you simply reload. (2) There is no choice One emblem more is better than one less. There is (mostly) no trade-off in any of the emblems, making them pure grinding goals instead of conscious choice between two more or less equal choices. And again, no failing since if you are loosing your favourite char you are more likely to reload than anything else. All in all the emblems are more accumulative, than making chars unique. Which is my goal. My suggestion is this: Occurence X in battlefield > After the mission the soldier needs to get operated > During the Operation the surgeons encounter complications and present you with 2 random choices > Each random choice is a buff and a debuff combination. You can choose between the course of operation. Occurences can be like [below 10% health], or [more than 40 points healed in combat] or any non-specific or specific conditions. De-/Buffs can be like +/-10 TU, +/-15 Accuracy, +/-5 health, +/-50% more resistant to psionics ( because surgeons had to cut out a part of the brain ), higher/lower proficiency with heavy weapons, mechanical hand for further throwing, etc ... . This avoids the grindiness of the TO system, because every occurence is random and risky, and you cant determine what kind of operation is going to follow it. It adds the choice of the player, and every soldier can have an never ending stack of buff and debuff combinations, and since they are relatively small, its unlikely that you will reload. And you will definitely grow attached more to that soldier that survived a muton shot and is now limping forever, but has been taught the importance of a pistol back-up. Seems to be the perfect crossover between JA2 and X1, where you dont have to simulate complex body parts, but can be easily added in as IF[soldier below 10%health(AND)alive;generate surgical event;nothing] and then just stack up all the buffs and debuffs in the equipment screen. Suggestions ?
  14. Woaw, what a change . And i thought the turn based combat was set in stone. @Coffee Potato @Dagar Where them gang at ? We gotta discuss this. Ok, this is going to be a long one, so sit down, sip your tea and relax. Clouds: Great Idea ! This reminds of the different clouds in Star Trek Armada 2. Metreon Nebula (red): Deals Damage as long as the unit is in it. Cerulean Nebula (blue). Deactivates Shields and saps power Metaphasic Nebula(green): Positive influence by hastening repair rate Radioactive Nebula (yellow): kills crew. Tachyon Nebula: no special effect. Modular Components: @Chris Let me be frank. Just copy Space Pirates and Zombies 1 down to the last byte. They are on top of their game. And here it is: Lets start from the top. Every ship has a hull, some can equipt armour, and all can equipt shields. Hull: Basic Ship hp. Armour: decreases damage by a flat amount. Heavier armour makes an aircraft slower. Shields: Every ship can have a shield. This ranges from junk, over standard, to either shields which quickly recharge with little protective power, to big slowly reloading shields. The offensive power is divided into: Cannons: Your usual "throw stuff into the face of your enemy" weapon. Good against armour. Missiles: Long range and autohoming. Good vs hull Torpedos: Good against everything it hits. Slow and low turn rate. Every Ship has support modules which can be differently outifitted. Every support modules boosts another thing in a different way. Engine: Boosts speed. Shield: Boosts max shield and recharge rate. Reactor: Increases max energy and recharge rate Cannon/Missile/Torpedo: Boost Damage/Range/Rate of Fire/Recharge Speed. All ship types have different amount of weapon and support slots, making them different and distinctive in their role. But you can also try to use something which it is absolutely not meant for. Pilots: There are fleet wide Commander/Pilot classes which give certain boni like higher Damage/Range/Recharge Rate/Speed/Turn Rate/Shield. I think a system where you put commanding officers in bases to give a bonus to the there stationed aircraft would be better than an individual pilot flying an individual plane. OR if you want people to grow attached to the pilots you can make them gain experience and gain random perks with each level up. What do we do about the people who arent on the reaction side of things ? I personally think that most of the stress people had in X1 was trying to control 3 (!) planes at once. Even for me its something which can be quite taxing, let alone those people who dont posses my level of concentration. I suggest that you could reduce the stress level by assisting the player with an AI for all aircraft which the player currently doesnt control ( Just like SPAZ 1 does it). It doesnt have to be super intelligent, just things like "Attack X" or "Hold position at Y". Making them automatically dodge incoming fire, or giving them the command to stay at a certain range, in a certain (dead) angle of the UFO. This could leave the player with a way more immersed feeling of not being the only intelligent being around, while not stressing out about having to make 3 different decisions for 3 diferent planes. Focusing on 1 thing takes the stress out of things. Summa Summarum Lets recap.
  15. Charon

    Modded pistols with shields

    Mysterious.
×