Jump to content

Ninothree

Members
  • Content count

    294
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    16

Ninothree last won the day on August 5

Ninothree had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

98 Excellent

About Ninothree

  • Rank
    Squaddie
  1. Into the Breach makes really good use of the telegraphing mechanic - although one objective in that game is to defend non-player objects. I don't know if it would transfer so well to the air combat here because that constraint doesn't exist (although it could). That said, some element of telegraphing would be cool, so that air combat has some focus on planning manoeuvres rather than just shooting. Positioning was a huge part of X1 air combat (it was like threading a needle but if you got into that narrow cone behind an enemy then you could stop them every turning to face you). There are a bunch of ways to spice up the air game and I think that something elegant is the ultimate aim: something that that is simple, fun and quite addictive. Subset games: FTL and Into the Breach, are the kind of things that I have in mind with this but they are probably too deep. Or at least, they are too deep for the game as it stands - I'd be more than happy for the air game to get a lot bigger, with the inclusion of weaving the skyranger through enemy air space to make hot landings as a feature - but the current xenonauts framework isn't open to that (yet). As it stands, the air game needs to be fairly simple. As Drages said, if it gets too big, then it blocks the players who aren't very good at the air game. Those who are here for the classic xenonauts turn based, shield phalanx, shotguns-to-the-face ground combat are going to turn their nose up at any complex air game even if it doesn't include cards. I'd be interested to hear how many people want air combat to be bigger and / or more complicated. If neither really appeals, then adding variety to counteract the repetition is probably never going to work - if it is not something people want to engage in, it'd be better simply to make air combat happen less often.
  2. yeah we should definitely put eagles in Xenonauts 2 There is lore hand waving that could be done to permit a secret base. One option would be for the main research/command base not to have planes and troops going in and out, that way it could remain pretty secret, only sending out narrow beam communications and otherwise being quite self sufficient. But that would change the game and might take away from the game - more realistic but at a net loss. Having said that, I think that there is room for more secrecy in the geoscape game. Make the whole operation of the xenonauts a bit more cloak and dagger.
  3. Using a card game setup for an air-combat mini-game has the advantage of mixing it up, it solves that issue of boring repetition. But I can see where Drages is coming from, cards just feel out of place in xenonauts. They work quite well in XCOM2 as cards on a strategic board - but a mechanic that draws cards from a deck for each interception would feel a little...clunky. However, I think that the same function, some random generator of combat variables, would work really well if it were given another face. It is just the aesthetic. Like the actual interception game itself is always going to look something like what people expect a radar display would look like.
  4. Ninothree

    Endgame theory crafting

    So you're saying that the player would unlock secondary objectives as the game goes on? I like that idea. The game Into the Breach allows you to jump to the boss after only completing 2/4 levels - OK, that whole game is more of a single-sitting arcade but I definitely like the choice of rushing a playthrough or stringing it out if you like how things are going. Thing is though, with Into the Breach your choice is influenced by the random weapons that you can receive. In Xenonauts, the game is not built to throw random stuff at you. To make that kind of feel, something really creative would need to be implemented into the research tree. Beyond that, I think it would be interesting to see how the community receives the challenge of taking on Endgame with only bullet weapons and rookies. It is a task for which I'd guess even the dev team wouldn't have the skill/patience. Personally, I get bored quite quickly with the lategame - I like the earlygame's sense of hopelessness and the midgame's sense of progression, but not so much the mopping up that you do toward the end. The excitement of top tier weapons eventually wears off. Sometimes I like to be one of those 100-percenters though, I always have at least one campaign that collects all the content. Given that there have been plans mentioned to shorten the campaign, I guess that the option to keep going will be something of a sore point if it is not included.
  5. Locational damage (as distinct from regular HP) could tie into the specialty of each alien race: Sebillians regenerate so you need to shoot them in the heart for a kill Wraiths are best taken down with headshots because that stops them teleporting Androns need their arms taking out, otherwise they'll just keep shooting Reapers are melee so shoot out their legs from afar In terms of humans taking wounds, I think that locational damage could pave way for a softer 'death'. Say that your soldier gets hit somewhere that is not their head (because no one walks off a head shot), then that soldier either fights on with a penalty or sits the fight out. If a soldier receives one body part of damage then they're in the medbay for a month, if they take two then they die. This means that you can have many 'battle royale' style fights with only a single hero soldier making it out still standing, but that doesn't mean your soldier roster resets to one.
  6. I think that this links into a concept one of the developers talking about, the idea of reducing UI bit by bit. For the experienced (or daring) player you wouldn't need anything. Just the map, the units and the cursor. No health bars, no accuracy indicator - just the cursor and some choice hotkeys to control everything, and a whole lot of guesswork to know what is going on.
  7. I meant more that there was some attrition to your squad, some die, some are merely gravely wounded. Indeed, aliens just trying to kill you limb by limb would be weird. Survival isn't traditional in xcom, and it is not a game type that everyone can hack. The point is that it would eventually not be a survival when you unlock the alien-resurrection tech, but getting that tech is the challenge you have to beat. Kinda like how the base defence mission is a gate you have to pass to progress - except in this case, it would be a longer challenge than just a single mission. Most xcom games are fairly difficult but it is also fairly rare to lose outright. Allowing mid-game resurrection would give you a reason to push on through losses but also dangle the threat of a game over situation.
  8. Ninothree

    Xenonauts-2: Research Tree

    That actually sounds a lot like the request @drages is making in the weapon/armor/damage thread. Give the player some control over the specifications of the items created, with obvious costs or trade-offs associated with them. So, instead of simply researching and building a laser shotgun, you first research the laser technology and then design a weapon that is effective at close range. Essentially, this would move some of the function of a mod into the game itself. It'd give you a lot more reason to use engineers so you could continue tinkering with weapons. And it would be like Boarderlands, giving you access to bazillions of potential weapon-stat-combinations.
  9. Ninothree

    Chris - Out of Office (& Mini Update)

    So that's what the kickstarter was really about...
  10. It could be a very dark and harrowing game, where you send your soldiers out to fight and they gradually lose their limbs over the campaign, only to be rejuvenated using the alien technology they are sent out to steal. I like the idea that the game is test of survival until the next medical breakthrough. Instead of worrying about making it to next month's funding, you're more concerned with how many soldiers can stand and shoot, and how many spare arms you have in cold storage. The game could be divided into phases, the first with conventional human medicine, where you are losing soldiers and not able to replace them; then you get some healing factor so you can get damaged soldiers back in a matter of days not months; finally, you research augmentation and field superhuman ubermensch.
  11. Ninothree

    Xenonauts-2: Ground Combat

    I think the point is to have a stat for moving/actions and a stat for firepower - with TUs being the former and accuracy being the latter. I don't know why stats have to be differentiated like that but it kinda makes sense.
  12. wow, this thread went dark. Okay, yea it is pretty fun.
  13. Ninothree

    Xenonauts-2: Ground Combat

    Collapsing buildings + a MARS unit that can destroy cover. I think I see where this is going.
  14. I've got to echo Solver's sentiment. The challenge shouldn't be a repetative one, that's just a chore; nor should the tactic to win battles be a repatitive one, that's equally dull. If each battle could present something new that would be best, e.g. there being enough UFO equipment/weapon loadouts for no two battles to be tackled the same way in one playthrough. I think that the ideal in my mind would be for the aliens to equip weapons or develop tactics in response to the player's previous tactics. e.g. if the player keeps rushing in with missiles, the UFOs start using close range defensive measures - this would then force the player to do some research. A cool thing about UFOs all using different and varied equipment, would be the potential to target and loot gear that you haven't already researched. Imagine facing a wave of scouts, one uses a shiny new shield generator. That is the UFO crash site to which you send your ground troops, because you want to steal the shield technology for yourself.
  15. Ninothree

    Xenonauts-2: Soldiers

    Surely you saw this one coming:
×