Bayonet12
-
Posts
28 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Bayonet12
-
-
4 hours ago, Alienkiller said:
@Bayonet12: Yes there I aggree, but the Games you can play on Steam again without doing anything (except the Language in X-Com: Interceptor and X-Com: Apocalypse like German, Turkey, Russia etc. you
I am not talking about steam rewards.
Grinding in games is like working overtime at work. If you get paid by the hour and work 2 hours longer everyday, plus Saturdays and Sundays, you get paid equal to the hours you've put in.
By no means am I talking about steam rewards. I am talking about the universal belief that you should be rewarded equal to the work you've put in. Since you played older games from DOS days, you might not be aware of what im talking about, but grinding has been mainstream since around 1996.
Why am I talking about this topic so much? Because I was told that players who grind shouldn't be rewarded, which is like saying people who work overtime dont deserve the extra pay.
-
9 hours ago, Alienkiller said:
Bayonett12, that could be. But my Expierence in the old Games 30 to 14 Years ago of that or a similar Gerne (dosen´t matter you play on MSDOS or MSWindows), were that you don´t get rewarded.
The time of MDOS was a long time ago. X2 should be trying to understand the current generation of players.
Games in todays world reward players for working hard. More you put in, more you get out. Developers understand how games can feel repetitive so they invigorate these areas to make it more enjoyable. You cannot avoid repetition, but you can make it more enjoyable.
Every major game atm tries to make all the things that make a game repetitive and make it fun. Thats how you beat repetition.
I dont understand why you havent addressed my sentence that ive repeated several times: I would rather see drive towards making missions so amazing and thrilling, that even if players did grind every mission possible: the experience would be so enjoyable it didnt feel like a grind.
Honesty who would not want missions to be so thrilling and exciting, you dont notice any repetition. I guess im alone?
-
23 hours ago, Alienkiller said:
Bayonett12, in all similar Games I have played before the new XCOM-Series and Xenonauts 2 that was the only Playstile.
If all similar games you've played before XCOM and X2 also believe players who grind should not be rewarded, im all ears.
It's difficult to engage in a full conversation because I dont believe you understand what im saying.
-
1 hour ago, odizzido said:
I think it's actually so that people don't feel the need to grind every mission and not to punish because they like punishing. I would and do feel the need to grind missions if it is the most beneficial. If the right balance is found I could potentially not feel the need to grind and enjoy the game more. I hope that with enough playing around a good balance can be found.
One thing to keep in mind, bayonet12, is that a simple mod could remove stress from the game. This may be a good option for you. Depending on how things go I may or may not use it as well eventually. If it turns out I want to remove stress from the game I will post the mod for you.
Well grinding in games is only done for several reasons. People who are more careful or new to the game might need to grind more to overcome the same task experienced players can do without grinding, and some players need to grind to catch up due to losses. Some people enjoy the grind and want to be the best, while others dont see it as a grind since they simply enjoy doing so. I think all these reasons apply to X2, and I do wonder about the effects for newer players losing experienced soldiers and struggling to finish the game since they cant grind xp that well to defeat final missions. When that's the case their game might be halted for a long time, until they can rebuild their soldiers back to respectable level to take on predator mechanics. People have already come into problems being unable to finish their game with the: Liaison system that gives limited Scientists and Engineers.
But as for stress, upkeep costs and feedback from Chris. I fear that if I were to play X2 as my first Xenonauts game I would have quit because I am unaware of the intended details behind stress, and I fear newer players will get tripped up on the hidden aspects as well. The only reason I understand how the system works is from constantly questioning things. Without the information ive learn from asking questions, my X2 experience would be extremely discouraging to say the least. With that said, I still object to the core drive that's: players who grind should not be rewarded. Which is why stress and higher upkeep was added as punishment.
I would rather see drive towards making missions so amazing and thrilling, that even if players did grind every mission possible: the experience would be so enjoyable it didnt feel like a grind.
For me ill play X2 the way they're wanting us to play, simply out of efficiently sake. But only because I have learnt that's their intention. However I know if this was my first time playing X2 I would get frustrated with it. I know what I would do too. I would hire more men to run as many missions possible but find my progress tedious and find stress an annoying limiter and quit playing. But if someone directly told me about the system they're aiming for, then I would adjust my expectations since I wrongly assumed I needed to run as many missions possible to be competitive.
For new players I fear they can easily fall into this trap, since the replies I about this topic is: well players can still run as many missions as they want. But we all know that running every mission is dead end. It hardly gives the player reward and it seems clear that it makes the game harder to run every mission (but that isnt directly obvious). Which again poses issues for new players since they're unaware of the ultimate conclusion that trying to run every mission is a negative to overall gain, even though logically it should grant players a bonus since: more work = more reward.
Or to put it simply, it's not logically or intuitively obvious that a player should assume that grinding as many missions possible would result in a: negative or no change to overall outcome.
It's not logically or intuitively normal to expect players to understand the idea of: players who grind should not be rewarded.
-
1 hour ago, Alienkiller said:
1. The Hardcore-Players which will do an rotating Crashsites-Recovery of X1 without delegations. Let them do it if they want. They get more Material, but have a big Army-, Transports-, Vehicle-, and Fighter-Cost every month. Evtl. they ballance with selling Artifacts (like in X1) the monthley Costs a little bit and can with evtl. produced Equipment make use of R & D for the own Soldiers. But they have then low Money for the Buildup, Upgrading etc. from more Bases / Outposts.
You've explained it well. All of the above reasons are the punishment put upon the gamer who wants to do as many combat missions they can. I dont think it will be efficient to do as many combat missions possible. Which is confusing since they want to discourage/reduce the amount of combat missions players do, but combat missions are huge part of the game.
We know the reason why, it's because X2 development team doesnt believe hardcore players who grind should be rewarded. Again same topic: why should players be punished for doing as many missions possible.
Philosophically baffles me. Ive never heard of a game punishing people for farming/grinding the core part of the game.
Again, before you say you can still run as many missions as you want: remember all the negative conditions that need to be overcome to do so, and remember Chris' opinion concerning farming missions and that, they dont believe you should be rewarded.
-
3 hours ago, EurekaSeven said:
Then I would say it's a part of the Strategy gamplay, as these gamers would take extra balancing on their input and output for extra infrastructures (the upkeep of 20+ soldiers each month would be fancy), and as you said, people can run teams of 4-6 to bypass this problem, but on the other hand, it make the ground missions more challenging as well as you have less personel each time and have to rely more on tactics.
So how players reacts to the stress system would make the gameplay more variable, you either put less effort on ground missions and airstrikes them, or you need to build more base/infrastructure and scratch your head for balancing a huge number of upkeeps. There're no one exclusive type of players for X2 and everyone should have the right to take their own solutions for the stress issue, it's encouraged.
I 100% agree with you, but when I look at intention verses reality something doesn't add up.
1. Do you think players who run every mission should be rewarded for working harder?
2. Should you be punished for wanting to run every mission?
I answer: 1. Yes, players should be rewarded and 2. No, players should not be punished.
If you think you do gain reward for running every mission with 2 teams you are slightly mistaken. Firstly read the quote below. Then remember that your xp gets split between 2 teams and the extra upkeep to maintain extra men is offset by what you gain from crash sites. You might break even by running 2 teams but the reasons as to why are highlighted in the quote below.
On 1/12/2021 at 11:03 PM, Chris said:"Grinding missions" in this context represents people sidestepping the challenges of the game. There's no tactical or strategic skill in what is essentially just playing the same mission you've already beaten over and over again to make future missions easier simply because you have more resources and overlevelled soldiers relative to what the game is balanced to, so I don't agree that you should reward people for grinding missions.
Stress punishes players who want to run every mission because it's believed that: players who do run every mission are sidestepping the challenge of the game by making it easier and shouldnt be rewarded. I want to fight against all the new diversity and challenges X2 has to offer by running every mission possible, but im treated as someone that's essentially cheating the system and should be punished.
If you think its simply ok because I can figure a way around it, sure I cant figure a way around it. But wtf is up with punishing those who want to farm the core aspect of your game and thinking they should not be rewarded?
-
1 hour ago, Chris said:
Except people are going to get very annoyed if they shoot down a new UFO and then it doesn't create a crash site until the third or fourth time they shoot it down, and then end up behind the research curve simply because they got unlucky with the "does the UFO make a crash site?" roll. The same goes for any new players that can't figure out how to actually generate a mission to play even though they've done everything right, they've just got unlucky that every UFO they attacked happened to blow up before crashing. There'd be a lot of angry people if we implemented that idea.
The alternative is that we just significantly reduce the number of UFOs that spawn on the Geoscape ... except obviously that makes the Geoscape much less challenging. This is actually the root of the problem; there's a lot more UFOs in Xenonauts than in classic X-Com because we wanted to make the air war more challenging and I assumed that the fact it's boring and repetitive to fight the same crash site over and over again would stop people from fighting every mission when the Airstrike option was available. Unfortunately, I was incorrect.
If it makes you happy to fight the UFO capture mission over and over again, you can still do that. The Stress system forces you to hire significantly more soldiers and that cuts into the resource gain so it doesn't unbalance the game so much. But more importantly, this also gives strategy gamers who don't want to run every mission permission not to do it because it's no longer clearly the optimal strategy, which means they're free to enjoy a more varied gameplay experience. To me, that seems like everyone wins and I'm not sure why you'd object to that (although I'm assuming here that you consider it a good thing to be fighting enemies of the appropriate difficulty).
Anyway, the discussion seems to be going round in circles at this point. Hopefully what I've explained above provides adequate justification for why the system is being implemented, but if not then there's nothing to be gained from me explaining further.
It doesnt work. People just bypass the system without even realizing the purpose of stress.
-
7 minutes ago, Praetorian said:
Reduce the amount of crash sites ? You don't want that. And that's not gonna work because of the Terror mechanic. You start with 1 base, thus covering about 1/3 of the world with a small radar diameter. This means that if 4 UFOs spawn each wave (for example) then you're gonna see only 1 of these per wave if you get lucky, 2 if you get really lucky. And you really need money. If they reduce the number of UFOs that spawn each wave, it's less likely for anything to enter your radar range for the longest periods of time, which means that the 2/3 of the world you are not covering is getting more and more terrorized because of the UFOs doing their genocidal activities over there. You need more crash sites, to get more cash, to open more bases before you Game Over due to continental terror reaching over 100. In other words if they reduce UFO counts, you'll never accumulate enough money on time and then Game Over.
Its not me who wants to reduce the amount of crash site missions. I prefer to run every mission but the new stress mechanic design and purpose is to prevent players from grinding every mission /sad face.
Development wants to discourage players from running every crash site so they put stress into the game. But im against stress since it can be bypassed and hinders freedom of gameplay. Plus the stress mechanic can by easily bypassed so players can run every crash site mission anyway.
So if the purpose behind stress is to reduce players grinding crash site missions but its not working, then i would rather see development simply reduce the amount of crash sites by: implementing a chance for alien ships shot down to explode on impact. Players receive small amount of resources from the crash and all aliens died on impact. Afterall if the purpose is to prevent grinding crash missions, then simply prevent players from grinding crash missions.
-
Side note, even though stress would hinder my game style therefore im against it, I will look at ways to bypass stress by using 2 teams of 4 soldiers instead of 1 team of 6. This' why im against it because your goal is to reduce missions, but all you're doing creating something that people will seek to bypass.
-
2 hours ago, odizzido said:
One thing missing from that is that you pay extra upkeep for the buildings and personnel that are required to do every mission....assuming that's the case. New patch with reduced stress is out so I don't know how that plays yet.
Do you know which patch they changed the upkeep? Im watching someone running 4th Dec patch who is mid game atm that hired 46 soldiers.
-
15 hours ago, Alienkiller said:
.
If the purpose of stress is to stop people grinding crash site missions, but people are easily able to do it: then the system is flawed. All you do is hire more men and rotate them.
Stress isnt reducing the amount of crash site missions, so simply simply remove the amount of crash sites.
-
So it would seem 3 teams of 12 is viable which makes sense, ive seen other players hire every unit possible and clear nearly every crash site.
I like having 1 core team of 6 running as many missions as possible, but since im only using 1 team some crash sites are too far to travel. But due to stress system: it would be game over after my 4th battle due to stress. However a player that trains more men and runs every mission can bypass the stress mechanic even though the purpose of stress was to: discourage players from running every mission. And newer players can easily assume that stress means they need to hire more men to have 2+ teams instead of one (such as in darkest dungeon), then the purpose of stress to discourage players isnt working.
I like the idea of discouraging players from running every crash site if there is something else to do.
-
17 minutes ago, Praetorian said:
Stress mechanic was fine in the build from 24/12/2020. Besides, you don't wanna do every UFO crash because you're gonna be so short on money while trying to open 2 more bases (not counting your HQ) to cover the rest of the continents. With how the balance is right now, if I didn't miscalculate, early UFOs seem to be less financially rewarding when you send troops. When you "delegate" them you get more money (the equivalent of "Air Strike" in X1). So what was best was to Ground Combat only those new UFOs that you haven't seen before to unlock research options, and delegate/air strike the rest.
When bigger UFOs appear, it seems to me that they start to become more financially rewarding via GC. Then I had 3 teams of 10 good looking soldiers lol (great art) that I rotated. Battleships give you 500'000 at first, then weirdly 150'000 (which does not match the gymnastics I have to do to take one down omg I even started sweating during Air Combat one time) but if I send in my soldiers I brought back 1'700'000 worth of things after I sell them from my storage room. Though battleships, that's an endgame thing so you can't rely on that because they come in too late, I just mentioned them here to give an example. But the midgame ships seem to be somewhat rewarding via GC.
Cool to hear. 3 teams of 10 soldiers, thats alot. Were you able to run every mission you wanted whenever you wanted with that amount?
-
Im seriously lost for words. I thought all the new features were to create diverse maps with variable enemies to overcome and enjoy.
But im told by the X2 Project Lead that players like myself who enjoy running every mission should not be rewarded by doing something that requires no tactical or strategic skill and should be punished.
Going from bad to worse wtf.
Its funny how Alienkiller never talked about the 2 other people who also raised concerns and objection to stress being added.
Edit: Although ive already listed other ideas, another simple idea is to just have alien ships explode on impact hitting the earth. Its not normal to have survivor when a ship is shot down. Problem solved and no stress, literally.
-
52 minutes ago, Chris said:
There's no tactical or strategic skill in what is essentially just playing the same mission you've already beaten over and over again to make future missions easier simply because you have more resources and overlevelled soldiers relative to what the game is balanced to, so I don't agree that you should reward people for grinding missions.
Harder difficulties are meant to represent better mastery of the game mechanics, not simply a willingness to undertake repetitive tasks to circumvent those game mechanics, so I don't agree with the second statement either.
Im EXTREMELY puzzled as to why you think players who run every mission should be punished for making the game easier. I thought I was playing the game. Doing a good job running every mission. I had no idea I was considered to be doing something that requires no tactical or strategic skill.
Im actually quite disturbed by what you said. I thought you were adding more missions, better alien AI, more alien mix, new alien type so that missions had: more depth and variety so they were less repetitive, and more enjoyable.
Well idk what to say. I thought playing missions on harder difficulty represented tactical and strategic problem solving. I dont see anything other then ground missions challenging or tactical.
Is there a new game mode coming out?
35 minutes ago, Chris said:Yup, that's certainly a point worth raising. But the player shouldn't have enough resources to build all the required infrastructure to run all those extra missions at the start of the game unless they sacrifice resources they'll be wanting to spend on other things, so I don't think it'll take them long to realise it's possible to play without doing every single mission. And if they do decide to grind all the missions anyway, at least they've got a bunch of extra upkeep costs that somewhat mitigate the gains they get from running those missions.
Therefore even if the Stress system doesn't totally solve the problem (and I personally think it'll do a better job than you do) it certainly helps solve some of it. And I don't really see many disadvantages to having it in the game.
EDIT - that said, again your reply is once again conflating difficulty and grinding missions. People who play the game on hard mode don't necessarily want to have to repetitively play the same mission over and over again. Some people want a longer campaign, which is fine, but that's got absolutely nothing to do with difficulty.
Well ive seen players on X2 beta hire every soldier possible and run almost every mission, so I dont think the message is obvious or working.
If stress is added for the purpose of reducing missions, but doesnt work and isnt obvious then its not doing its job. There are draw backs to stress, but you dont care because you think people who run every mission are making the game easier and should be punished.
I play every mission - get punished for playing...20 days in recovery GG.
-
Here's the problem with stress.
Stress is designed to prevent players from doing every crash mission. I quote: "The purpose of this system is to discourage the player from running too many missions (the player isn't meant to fight a crash site battle every time they shoot down a UFO), and soldiers gain stress from taking part in missions that slowly fades over time."
But you are assuming new players will see the purpose behind stress. A newer player can easily assume they need to train more soldiers so they can take on every mission. When I first played X1 I ran every mission to make sure I didnt skip any battle since it could be a mistake to do so. It was only after completing the game did I understand how advanced I was and could have skipped many battles. So how are new players suppose to know they need to skip battles? It's more likely they will assume they need to train more men to run every mission.
If players are not suppose to run so many missions, make the game length and crash mission quantity vary depending on difficulty. Adding stress so that players hopefully understand they're not suppose to run so many battles is an flawed assumption.
3 hours ago, Alienkiller said:Nope exactly that makes the Game for Players in such Levels interessting. Do you think XCOM, Hearts of Iron and others interesst that. The Player get that Hardcoded and is on his / her own authority to use the Veteran and / or Ironman Modus.
There is nothing to discuss about it. Stress Level like we have here or in a similar Way in the other Games are a must have.
Nothing to discuss, who are you? Are you shutting down discussion now? Good to hear. -
On 1/9/2021 at 8:24 AM, Alienkiller said:
@Bayonet12: If you are a Beta-Tester or one of the lucky Guys from the Steamthing for X2 and read the Archives as well as Storytexts you know the answer to your Question.
lol you cant possibly expect me to be part of that limited club. Hence why im asking questions, because I would love to understand the games development direction to help improve it considering: how much I enjoyed the X1.
On 1/10/2021 at 7:05 AM, some12u said:That's not how NV works at all, especially if you place the thematic tech level (looking how your starting rookies are equipped) at around desert storm or earlier. Not to mention the extreme accuracy depuffs if you want to go more realistic.
X2 isnt set in Desert Storm. Its set in a time when a crashed alien ship has been discovered and aware aliens are attacking the planet. A time when the cold war isnt over, which means: research into military equipment would have sky rocketed due to demand and access to alien technology, and not to mention threat of alien invasion.
-
On 1/9/2021 at 7:22 PM, Chris said:
Obviously the "this is XCom" rules are subjective, but I don't think it's unreasonable to invoke "that's not X-Com" rule when you were essentially advocating removing a memorable part of the original game (night missions) while being happy to break it when adding a balancing system that only affects players playing in an unusual way that breaks the game balance and makes it less enjoyable.
Essentially the problem with doing every mission is that I either have to balance the game around people that grind every mission (forcing everyone to do it even though it's less fun), or I balance it around normal players and anyone who fights every mission has a very easy time of it because they have way too many resources and overlevelled soldiers for that stage of the game.
It's possible to balance it in other ways than the Stress system, but all of it boils down to reducing the number of missions the player plays. Sounds like your issue is with that rather than the Stress system. I'm not averse to putting a longer campaign mode in the game but you have to understand that people that want a 75 mission campaign are atypical and we're not going to design the standard game mode around that desire.
1. You do not punish people for grinding, you reward them.
2. The game already balances itself when you select which difficulty.
I would love to hear logical reasons as to why the above two sentences are not fair.
You could always remove stress mechanic for Veteran & Ironman since they're suppose to be harder and obviously require more grinding.
-
On 1/4/2021 at 6:21 AM, Alienkiller said:
It´s a very good system and is an real component, which all Soldiers, Pilots etc. have in Wartime or real hard training (Wartime Exercise). It´s a must have, because all other Games have it.
Except X-com which's what Xenonauts is based on.
Solders in Xenonauts do not fight 24/7. There is plenty of time between battles, especially since Devs want to reduce the amount of repetitive mission. Even in X1 there were breaks between events, and X2 wants to reduce the amount of missions, which means there would be even more free time.
Only soldiers who're in battle 24/7 day after day need holidays. SEAL/SAS act very similar to Xenonauts. They are not at war 24/7 and have plenty of recovery time between missions.
But again, doesnt matter. Imaginary rules, no point giving feedback.
-
1 hour ago, Chris said:
Darkest Dungeon is a game specifically about stress and adventurers going insane and it's a critical element of that game, so it's not a particularly good point of comparison for what we're trying to achieve here. The XCOM2 fatigue system works fairly well overall and is a better example to look at, as it's just a secondary system that puts a few minor bounds on the gameplay and generates the occasional interesting dilemma.
The stress system in X2 isn't going to impact you much unless you're determined to grind out every single crash site on the Geoscape (which most players aren't interested in doing), so I wouldn't worry too much about it. It's a bit of a blunt instrument right now but we're going to finesse it a bit more over the next few updates.
I am the type of person to run every battle, so it is going to impact my playstyle: especially since your goal is to heavily reduce the amount of battles to 20-25 max iirc. When I make a suggestion I am told it's not good due to not following X-Com which's the spiritual successor. Yet was stress part of X-com?
I think it's to harder to figure out these imaginary rules then it's to play Xenonauts Ironman lol.
-
6 hours ago, Chris said:
Perhaps I've missed the point of what you're asking here, but this feature is already in both Xenonauts 1 and Xenonauts 2, right?
Soldiers can see half their normal view distance at night through passive night vision, but if a tile is illuminated by other means (a flare, fire, an environmental light) then soldiers can see up to their full view distance. If that feature wasn't in place then soldiers literally wouldn't be able to see even one tile in front of them unless they used a flare or were stood in a lit area.
How NV works is you have almost the same vision as daytime bit rougher around the edges such as slightly less range, less preficial vision, bright lights glow etc. So I guess I shouldnt have said 50-60%, but rather -10 or -20% of daytime vision.
9 hours ago, Alienkiller said:Exactly such Things are announced in the Archiv with the X-25 Entry as well as in an other Storyentry atm. Evtl. more such Explenations will come in more Story- and other Entrys.
If alien tech can block advanced aircraft forcing us to use older transport, then with what technology are Xenonauts able to destroy alien aircraft?
-
1 hour ago, Alienkiller said:
@ all: Why do you think Xenonauts is using the X-25 Angel Interceptor and an older Transport-Plane as well as the special Researched MARS-Vehicle? The Answer is Easy: The high electronics we have are not useable against the Aliens like in the Archive listed. The Aliens can Jam or Destroy it. That´s why the Founding States lost many Soldiers, Fighters and other things against the Aliens. They count on you to find a Solution to integrate such Helpers again against the Alien-Threat.
If that's the rational for not being able to use NV and other electronic devices, then that's cool. But it would need to be specifically highlighted to players before playing, and integrated into the core system of the game such as: anything that uses X technology cannot be used at all. I guess that would also limit which fighter jets can be used since the technology used in jets would be neutralized by alien tech.
-
2 minutes ago, EurekaSeven said:
your soldier with current human technology although can overcome darkness, but the aliens can still outrun them (in the lore the Seballians are borned with night vision and thermal abilities), so the odds are still against the human. Such advantage from aliens can only be overcome after you get more advanced Warden armour.
Exactly. The start of the game is all about human tech vs aliens and slowly building your R & D to become stronger and ultimately finish the game.
The idea of throwing flares while holding modern weapons is hilariously stupid, and one of the reasons why I treat night missions with utter contempt. Its such a joke throwing flares but then you have to waste all that extra time being extra careful without getting any bonuses for doing so. I only did a few night mission for the extra difficultly. Once I figured night missions were just a time sink having to be extra careful without any extra features, I never ran a night mission again. -
On 1/7/2021 at 1:30 AM, Chris said:
Because Xenonauts is a spiritual successor to X-Com and night missions with reduced vision and flares were a big part of X-Com, basically. It's easy enough to make night missions act like day missions (in fact it would have saved us a hell of a lot of effort not to do it) but it's a feature people expect from a relatively faithful modern successor to that game. If we remove too much of X-Com people may as well just play XCOM instead.
Was stress levels part of X-Com?
-
2 hours ago, EurekaSeven said:
I understand the aim to recreate the flare feature, but there can still be space to introduce a restricted NVG for authentic purpose as well. At least, even for modern binocular NVGs, the tunnel of sight (or whatever it is called) is still too narrow, the operator have to scan the surroundings routinely as their sight angle is restricted than naked eye.
Some one would purpose the fancy DEVGRU GPNV-18 NVGs as it has bigger angle, but it's not only expensive, but heavy, it would be painful to swing your head around with this thing on the helmet. Also, both NVG and infrared are electronics, which also means they can be disrupted or jammed.
Same restrictions can be imposed on present time infrared goggles. So well, before the Xenonauts can play with the night vision helmets, the present time technology is not perfect in night missions. It would be both authentic and logical if such feature is introduced. I'm also wondering, a dark missionmay be extra authentic if it has the greeny filter
I agree.
Before I talk about some details, I want to point out how new players would feel about doing night battles with flares. If you are wanting to make the game slightly more accessible for new players, then you must look at improving night battles.
When considering the implications of this theorized NV it be like having 50-60% normal vision range, which by no means is easy. NV in the games ive played have alot of pros and cons. Reduced range, reduced peripheral vision, lights/fires are blinding to look at etc. Playing with NV feels very haunting and creepy at times. Which is how I felt when playing Xenonauts for the first time when I walked around a corner and found these crazy aliens. For me Xenonauts can be very spooky since I play on hard difficulty and dont want my men to die. NV wouldnt ruin this experience, but improve it. You could also make it that some elite aliens cannot be seen with NV too.
I would urge a quick test run. Ask a coder to make a night battle but your vision is 50-60% of what it normally would be during a day battle, and see how that feels. Im confidant it wouldnt break the spirit of Xcom. It should feel like having slightly less vision of day battle without needing to use flares, while still being very challenging.
To be frank, if I was playing my X1 campaign with NV like we've pointed out, it would still be very risky and I would expect higher bravery xp at the end of it. This type of NV wouldnt be giving a game breaking advantage, it would just reduce the illogical lack of NV and tedious use of flares.
Xenonauts-2 December Update
in Monthly Development Updates
Posted
You have no idea what you're talking about. Single player children games from 1996 rewarded players who grinded.
Other games such as: Baulders Gate, Diablo, Everquest, Pokemon, Final Fantasy, Heros of Might and Magic, the list goes on and on. In all these games players can choose grind and be rewarded. Players can spend as much time as they wanted to level up, farm gear and max themselves. The more time you put into farming/grinding, the more rewards you got.
Same concept as: working overtime, going to the gym, studying, practicing singing, painting, car racing. The more time you invest, the more reward you get, the stronger you get. Im pretty sure we're living in the same planet right? How can what I say be such an alien concept?