Gazz
-
Posts
590 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Gazz
-
-
What's the point of reducing base size if you're freeing up space by removing entire buildings?
The point is that building LQ is a non-choice.
If you build a lab and a workshop, do you really get to decide whether you want to build living quarters for them or not?
Features like that add no gameplay because the player doesn't get to make a decision. It's not difficult to do or expensive. It's merely a chore put on the player by the game... which is a situation that should be avoided at the design stage.
-
Meh, I might just reduce the capacity of the living quarters and the workshop / labs. I might be able to achieve something similar without sacrificing the extra level of control that comes with hiring / firing individual scientists and engineers.
It's fake control because it doesn't offer any choice.
If you need 15 scientists to research for 4 days then that's a fixed cost. Same as having 30 scientists research for 2 days.
If you attach this cost to the research projects directly, you achieve the same thing with less fiddle. And without living quarters. =)
-
I guess I can't have it both ways with the scientists / engineers, so if they came with the building they probably would have to work free as otherwise you lose the chance to shut down your labs when they're not being used to reduce maintennce without demolishing them. which means the cost would have to be frontloaded - initially expensive, less so afterwards.
Not necessarily.
Say the building costs it's regular (low) maintenance.
The cost for the scientists is added to the research projects.
Researching laser rifles costs you 9000 $ or whatever.
You have the exact same system as now where the work has to be paid for.
Except that instead of hiring / firing on every change of workload, the player only has to schedule the projects. After that is done, it is assumed that some unnamed flunkie does the work of hiring/firing to get the required personnel to where they need to be.
No need for an additional system of temporarily shutting down installations. No need to frontload any costs.
Exact same depth as now - only without the silly micromanagement.
It's also much more in style with the player being the Big Boss and having a staff to do these kind of things.
Would also be another potential candidate for building synergy. Every additional lab reduces total research cost by x %.
Alternatively you could have both living quarters and barracks except that LQ wouldn't have a cap and would automatically satisfy the living needs of all non-combat personnel in base (scientists, engineers, janitors, rat catchers...).Living quarters are tucked away safely below the control room. Every base has them because the control room wouldn't be manned without it. =)
-
Eliminating pointless micromanagement? This is an awesome notion and should be supported!
Once you build workshops / labs / barracks, you have already decided on what will happen in the base.
Having to build living space or doing the clicking to actually hire the scientists adds nothing. That's just me going through the moves. A pointless chore that I will happily wave goodbye to. =)
laboratory/workshop...I might boost it up from 10 - the larger number of scientists/engineers you have the more room you have to play with the differentiation of research progress.
It is still differentiated by the required time. Using big numbers doesn't make a game better and doesn't change the decisions that the player makes. They are just bigger numbers. =)
The RADAR change will probably work as outlined.
What I'm wondering is if you could merge the new and old systems.
There are still different types of RADAR with different detection chances.
If you build multiples of the same type of RADAR, these add up their range. The range of other types of RADAR in that base is unaffected or only increased by a much smaller percentage.
Not sure if that would make RADAR spam basically required and if it would work with the space allocation.
Alternative:
The RADAR buildings you build increase range. The Data Analysis Centers (which need a better name) increase this base's RADAR detection chance. You can never have enough of both. Decide.
(I already hate it from a player's perspective because I want perfect! That's a very good sign!)
Having multiples of a given structure (the "adjacency boni" of XCOM) give a certain bonus - whether adjacent or not - is generally a good idea because it keeps rewarding specialization instead of having one main base and a bunch of RADAR sites.
For instance, barracks could house 8, 10, 12, 14, 16 soldiers each. Same with labs and workshops.
Multiple barracks could even very slightly increase the rate of soldier experience gain.
Multiple labs: small chance (outside of research and at random times) of "upgrade" developments to current items to become available. Just small upgrades that can shake up the strict "tier" structure of items at least a bit.
Multiple workshops could give you a chance of occasionally producing extra items... "from stuff we had kinda lying around here, y'know."
For fighter hangars: reduce rearming / refueling times with multiples.
Garages could boost the efficiency of workshops by 5, 10, 15, 20 %. Also aircraft repair speeds.
I'm sure there could be more ways for structures to interact and "buff" each other. Those are just off the top of my head.
A single base would be very inefficient in comparison. You just couldn't stack all the boni you want. =)
And even if a base had all the buildings it needs for the intended operation, there would always be something you could build... and make it work just a little better!
A little more interaction between those basic structures would give the player something to think about.
Less fiddle with many different structures... but more depth.
Don't anyone get hung up on those numbers, though! I just made them up for explanation.
-
I've seen it compared to XCOM but the tactical combat is considerably less deep.
There is no opposition in the "cityscape".
There is a constantly increasing "police heat" counter but when it reaches max, all you have to do is pay up to 2000$ which isn't such a big deal.
The rest of the cityscape consists of buying low and selling high, building resource generators, and generally bee-lining to total domination of the map. Same thing on every map.
XCOM has more strategic / management choices than that.
I bought the "Two Pack" together with someone else so I still don't consider it overpriced.
It's pretty stylish and fun for a while. =)
Don't think I'm ever going to complete the campaign, though. I've seen enough.
-
Wait, doesn't seawater destroy the alien alloys? Why don't we just equip our interceptors with water missiles?
It dissolved entire aliens in some silly TV series. Enemy Nation or something.
-
I like "Sandman".
"Cowboy" because he's using a cattle-prod.
-
The idea was to have directional cover.
-
Is there a reason why you can't have a rifle in one hand and a rocket launcher in the other?
Yes, common sense. =)
Have you fired an assault rifle or machine gun? I did.
You wouldn't want to do that one-handed.
-
Every post I see on this thread makes me think the game has been released.
Maybe it has - but on the other planet first.
-
*shrug*
At least you tried to add something useful instead of parroting some general terms from other games!
That should be encouraged. =)
-
Yay. Woo. I cheer.
Grumpy christmas to all of you!
-
In the strategy genre I came across Wargame European Escalation (a recent Steam sale).
Really hardcore / old school strategy game. Well, more of a RTS but with a gazillion real world units from the cold war era.
Infantry unit x of nation y has their proper assault rifle, grenades, and launchers...
I was big on war games back in the day of real strategy games so I'm right at home. =)
PS: digging out infantry from an urban area is a royal pain. As it should be. Don't even think of sending your tanks in without cover. Note to self: invest more campaign points in gunships with rocket / grenade launchers. =)
Alas, artillery is terribly inaccurate.
I was in an arty unit and if anyone showed that kind of performance, they'd be cleaning barrels for a month!
Oh well. Pet peeve of mine. Just nod and smile.
Come to think of it, there was this arty lieutenant who was a cool 10 kilometers off when planning our route march. I guess some people should be kept as far away as possible from live artillery pieces.
-
Can't we just agree that it's definitely no .50 cal of any kind? =P
-
Is that the new air combat UI?
-
I think it's quite funny how attached people have got to the awful old Geoscape.
Face it, a better designed UI makes your game less old school.
Of course some will hate that! It's a dangerous trend that may eventually result in the reduction of pointless micromanagement! =)
-
Make that reindeer-drawn and you have the makings of a santa's sleigh dogfighting game!
Want!
-
X-COM and Magic Carpet came out the same year and both were A Big Deal. It's only natural that the same people know about both.
Back then, any serious gamer wanted to play both - but MC had crazy requirements like a 486 processor! Or even a Pentium. Hah, right.
-
Nope. From Dust is a puzzle game. I bought it by accident before finding that out.
If you don't "cast" the right powers in the right order, you have to replay the level until you do.
Yah, I know. It looks like a god game. That's why I bought it...
-
No way!
Everyone knows that you can't have on-the-fly terrain modification in a modern game. Using fireballs to create craters, watching water flow into them... nah. It's not done.
-
The vampire squid is a terror unit?
-
PS I paid the 30 dollars for the "Premium Version" so you have to listen to me rant now
ROFL...or not, but you do so at your own risk.You know, you could rant for free as much as you like. The "risk" for Goldhawk doesn't exist if you paid up already.
And the whole DLC / expansion thing is a very dead horse. They are the same thing. The only thing that matter if it's worth it to you. Since you said that you'll probably buy the next XCOM DLC, that means it's worth it to you so it's all good.
Oh, and BTW: Don't forget to rant on the Firaxis forum. It's free, too.
-
Examples were that you always needed to invest 1-2 "level ups" into accuracy before doing anything interesting with the soldier.
Things you must always do are a chore, not a choice.
An obvious alternative would have been to generate soldiers with useful stats. (I'm no master marksman but I can easily hit a man-sized target at 200m using a rifle with just iron sights!)
To avoid the I-Win cookie cutter builds, upgrading could also work through picking an archetype / training at level-up time, which adds an assortment of stats. More accuracy with the marksman, more throwing with the grenadier - just no silly one trick pony soldiers.
A lot of the "boring" was also UI-related like the high number of clicks (and waaaaaaiting on the Ui, and finding the right menu entry...) you needed for something as basic as firing a gun.
(not for trying to contradict or to argue with you)Hey now! What's wrong with contradicting me? =P
-
Nah, just for design.
Base Simplification Ideas
in Xenonauts General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Gazz
Good point and mostly correct!
Of these three only the command center has a gameplay function.
It's an intentional vulnerability. You have to protect it during a base attack.
Storage could be taken out immediately with zero loss of gameplay.
Back in the OG I used to have an entire base dedicated to nothing but storage and that mean constant micromanagement in shuffling items back and forth. There was nothing interesting about it and no challenge whatsoever.
Barracks could gain a gameplay function by aiding soldier training in some way. If there is no such thing then yes, barracks are identical to living quarters and should be taken out as well.
Game design also means removing the features that do not present the player with a decision or challenge.
To use soldiers, you need to hire and manage them, need a Skyranger and hanger to do so. Medical facilities. Maybe a garage.
The Skyranger has multiple versions, has downtime, is a gameplay feature. It is worth tracking.
How often do you manage the barracks building after building it once? If the answer is not at all then it serves no purpose. No gameplay.
If overall base space is reduced then barracks carry no opportunity cost, either.
Eliminating barracks + living quarters also solves an issue of great silliness.
What if the barracks (or LQ) get destroyed during an attack? Do all the soldiers perish after you win the battle because they no longer have a place to sleep?
Your mini tanks becoming inoperable when their maintenance / rearming / refueling facilities are destroyed makes some kind of sense but soldiers don't die that easily...
If this were all there is to the game, if this were Sim City, then yes.
Only it's not.
Reducing the base management to the elements that actually require a decision is long overdue and it's a great relief that Chris finally got around to tackling the issue.
From an aesthetical point of view you do have a point.
Every base should have living quarters and storage but if they are modeled at all then they should be a fixed part of the command center structure.
You build a base, it comes with these three buildings pre-built and you cannot remove them.
Only the command center "core tile" can sustain critical damage. Storage or quarters can only generate fixable damage.
(damage there may be a mess to clean up but it does not utterly destroy a base)