Bibidibop
-
Posts
81 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Bibidibop
-
-
Being able to manufacture the F-17 too, and the starter weapons, are must haves if the MiG is constructable. The fourth, empty, hanger should definitely be in too.
Mig32 seems not so much advanced to be a tech. I would like to have a low orbit intercetor instead. Based mostly on earth techs. Very fast small plane that can go around the earth but very expensive, having only 1 or 2 hardpoints and low HP.Well if it can go above 200 km parabolic orbit then i would like alien ship to approach and capture this small plane with a pilot inside. That would be very scary for player.
That would be extraordinarily hard to research without alien technology, which is needed to cheat realistic research and design times.
If anything, the MiG-32 should be the Lockheed YF-12, which was faster, higher flying, had greater range than the MiG-32, flew 16 years before the game, fired the AIM-47, and wouldn't require any modification. It is also American, which is important because the Xenonauts equipment isn't mixed like the in-universe concept suggests. It's all US style, so might as well go whole hog.
I realize it's late for the art, but with the Soviet pack, the MiG-32 could be moved to that pack. The YF-12 would also create a striking visual difference against the F-17
-
3) It's a research project that can be available from the start of the game. This lets people use the research screen without having to capture alien technology.
The more I think about this idea, the better it sounds. Anyone got any thoughts?
This all makes sense, and I was actually using the MiG against everything with Avalanches, by firing 1, waiting two seconds, then firing three. I wasn't sure it was obliterating craft, but I had the feeling it was the case. The Avalanche being too powerful for scouts needs to be part of the MiG description.
First, I think the Light Scout is going to have to build up to a three Light Scout wing before the Heavy arrives. That way, the player is gradually introduced to the needs and practicalities of fighter tactics.
Knowledgeable players would know to research the MiG first thing, and since the issue is about teaching the player to use the MiG, I see no issue with this. The alternative would be to pop the MiG tech the first time a Heavy Scout is intercepted, with no requirement of destruction.
This gives me an idea, the first time we detect a craft never before seen, can the game show no art, and instead say U.F.O.?
-
What if, when you leave a path, but don't commit to walking it, and you move to another soldier, but then go back, the first soldier's path is still in place, ready to go? What if, those laid but uncommitted paths also turned grey when not on the particular soldier so you could see them all at once?
This would allow all the paths to be plotted and compared, then committed.
-
The soldiers in the current "for hire" pool will be cycled out per per standard cyceling rate (not sure what rate this will be, don't think Chris has decided on the final rate). However there won't be any new soldiers generated untill all of the soldiers in the hidden pool has been cycled into the current pool. (The hidden pool is made up out of the generated soldiers that did not fit in the visible pool after you were finished fireing the subpar soldiers. Includeing those you didn't hire in the first place, should any of them end up in the hidden pool)
Did that answer your question?
Kind of. I think I narrowed the question down.
If the visible pool is full of subpar recruits (due to rapid hiring), will those visible subpar recruits cycle out without me having to do anything, and get replaced by decent soldiers?
-
Hiring LOADS of soldiers at the start of the game will let youi get your hands on the top soldiers immediately, but that just means you'll only have terrible soldiers left for however many months it takes you to cycle through all the soldiers you fired at the start of the game. This means it probably won't be worth the investment of money required to do it.
In the end though, does this mean that any soldier (sub par, non-hired, fired) in the pool will automatically cycle out at the rate of one normal stat replacement per week?
-
That way you can recruit 50 soldiers at the start of the game and cherry pick the best ones if you want, but not only would it be expensive but you'd only be getting the soldiers you didn't initially want appearing for the next four months or so. That would effectively halt the cherry picking that the powergamers used to do, but it won't affect people playing the game normally.
But, you would need to wait roughly three months no matter what for top soldiers in the pool? The matching up of the penalty with the natural refresh rate was what initially confused me until I did the math. If over hiring were somehow pushing the natural refresh rate back, then I would be against it.
Regarding a cost for firing soldiers - not keen on that. You pay an upfront cost to hire them already, which is the penalty incurred if you immediately fire them afterwards.Someone wants us charged to fire personnel? That would be horrible.
Also, quoting myself on firing.
I don't mind a fired soldier going to the hiring pool, but only if their slots are specially highlighted to indicate their fired state. The differences are, you can retrieve them for free, and they get fired the moment you go to the world map. That way, there is no need for safety confirmation prompts at all.[edit] I just realized, I prefer it consistent. If firing isn't instant, then I think hiring shouldn't be instant either. Instead, why not just show all the recruits, no hidden recruits at all. The moment you hire one, you start getting degenerate recruits?
-
There should be enough room to show all of the recruits at the same time, even with 30 on screen at once, and that's just with a spread sheet. If the soldiers are arranged using cards, and buttons to control and highlight hierarchy, nearly 90 could be on screen at once.
Actually, I wasn't considering how the current Personnel screen is laid out. I don't know how many would reasonably fit if it were all combined.
I don't mind a fired soldier going to the hiring pool, but only if their slots are specially highlighted to indicate their fired stated. The differences are, you can retrieve them for free, and they get fired the moment you go to the world map. That way, there is no need for safety confirmation prompts at all.
-
The number of soldiers in the pool is good. My first thought was it would be ten soldiers, but that probably is too few.
I take it, returning fired soldiers to the pool is a way to mitigate the pool replenishment penalty, by keeping it topped off? However, I don't see the point. If you make it so the penalized soldiers are always the first to be replaced by the weekly replacement cycle, then it amounts to the same thing. In either case, after one week, you get a new non-penalized soldier, but this way, the soldier you discarded definitely disappears as soon as possible. If I'm firing someone then I want them gone, so I think fired soldiers should not reenter the pool.
The rapid pool replenishment penalty is good, and I think the timing works out. Although, I find the pool refreshment rate rather rapid, it does make sense for the game and the sake of finding new soldiers.
-
I've yet to be convinced to change the AP Reserve; I think the current system will work fine. The idea is that it will be persistent from turn to turn for each individual soldier, but each soldier has their own individual AP Reserve setting.
I've sent the detailed implementation instructions to the coder so he can get cracking, and the only thing I've changed is swapping the map and end turn buttons around as you guys are right about the danger of misclicks. Unfortunately, the map won't be implemented in the next build. I'm still not sure exactly how we're going to do it.
It is possible for the AP we can have a setting in the options allowing a soldier to use reserved APs to fire during their turn, but I don't want it cluttering up the GUI. Remind me during beta.
The reserve order makes sense from the perspective that you have the normal aim types grouped, then the odd ball (burst) at the end. Ordering it by AP makes sense in purely numeric terms.
I think the real criteria is, will players chose purely based on cost, or will they chose on fire type? If it's purely cost driving players, then burst should be second from last, but if burst is often skipped over for the better accuracy, despite higher AP cost, then putting burst last due to its unique nature makes sense.
Isn't that what tutorials are for, though? If you don't know what stuff means, you play the tutorial.I greatly dislike tutorials. They delay getting into the proper game, and make the gameplay dull. I believe tutorials also go against a unique ability possessed by video games, the ability to teach by action, through carefully crafted level design. Certain things do need to be told to a player's face, instead of using subtly, such as which mouse and keyboard buttons will be used, and what they do (if you are using more than WASD) unlike with console controllers which have very limited buttons. With a controller you can trial and error your way into knowledge of control very quickly.
-
I know what should replace the stats button, the map button. The map being right below the End Turn key is dangerous.
Also, ignore my example of the off center portrait. It's bad, it imbalances the interface. The portrait needs to be in the middle to balance the left and right ends which appear heavier than the rest of the interface. It would be different if those big things were shifted to one side.
-
Hopefully the image is self explanatory. But the green in the height meter is the ground level, in case there are levels with sub levels.
-
So same amount of killing (or are they too powerful?), same size blast radius, but less smoke and fire? I agree
Now that you mention it, I'm not confident I know their blast radius, but the smoke and fire is far too much. I think grenades only have half a stick of TNT in them, or the equivalent, so they smoke should at most be one square at a low setting for one turn.
-
The new combat isn't perfect, but it's definitely the right direction. The old combat is boring.
-
It would make more sense to me if opening doors at angles was done with left clicking. Right clicking never occurred to me.
As for throwing around corners, you can get a semi-around the corner through by standing a guy at an angle and throwing through the hole. If the space is small enough the grenade's explosive radius will be large enough to get everything inside.
Grenades are extremely powerful in the current build, and leave far too much smoke and fire. Their damage radius should be the same though. Shrapnel.
-
strange, I couldn't get it to work. I'll have to try again. Although, throwing grenades around corners probably isn't in the game.
-
Two suggestions:
- Ability to open doors without standing in front of them, from the squares at 45 degree intervals.
- The ability to throw grenades from the above positions.
These are realistic, and make safe dynamic entry possible
- Ability to open doors without standing in front of them, from the squares at 45 degree intervals.
-
Don't declare basic principles wrong. E=MC^2 is correct, at most C, the speed of light, might be in question. You could have C = 299 792 458 m / s crossed out with a ? next to it.
- Artistically I like the base section window selection button board. Ergonomically, I wonder how it will transfer from section to section without requiring slight repositionings of the mouse and eyes. As long as it lines up the same way every time I see no issue.
- The lab looks great, all the backgrounds do, and this one is very period appropriate. The computer though, it's a dumb terminal? That would fit well with the racks of tape memory in the background.
- The scientist is an asshole, and if he has military rank I would report him for insubordination. I would remove those rank like shoulder straps so it's clear he is purely civilian.
- The very vague Progress makes sense, but is none the less rather irritating. Instead, how about a projection in days which fluctuates based on the progress quality of good, none, average. At 'none', the days would be ∞, 'average' could be whatever average research time actually is, or close to around to it.
- In the list of in progress projects, the scientist count column could use up/down arrows. Otherwise we're left with cancelling research to adjust personnel use.
- I feel like the cancel column should be a column of empty boxes which get filled by an X when clicked. Then the research line is struck with a line across the whole row. When you leave and come back to the Research Lab the row is gone. This also gives the chance to unstrike the line if you don't make immediate changes. If the board is too filled, then the struck row disappears once the new project is added.
- My only worry about the Manage Research page is that it has so little space for listing projects. The current organization seems better with its limited hierarchy.
- I like having Hire/Fire right in the lab as well as in Personnel. It's great to list the lab and housing on one page, and for it to be for all bases. That's extremely convenient.
- I think Research Advice could use a small page break line between each suggestion.
-
- Like so.
- Artistically I like the base section window selection button board. Ergonomically, I wonder how it will transfer from section to section without requiring slight repositionings of the mouse and eyes. As long as it lines up the same way every time I see no issue.
-
- All fuel everywhere will need to be noted in seconds for the Combat Fuel reading to make sense.
- In light of the lowest numbers being red, should the highest and medium numbers be green and yellow respectively? Or at least use green and no yellow?
- Missile count should be included.
- Since we're using absolute numbers for fuel, and for missiles if included, should gun ammo be in seconds of fire?
- The space between the stats and craft sections is vertically inconsistent with the spaces above and below the respective sections. Does it look better or worse with consistent spacing?
- Definitely don't show graphics for absent enemy craft, and definitely use the art rather than the top down combat graphic. The art has artistic worth, and is pleasantly colored, while the top two examples have too much red and hurt my brain.
- The UFO squadron name could use a change. You'll need a shorter sentence, "SQUADRON-X HAS CLOSED TO COMBAT RANGE WITH UFO-SQUADRON-X."
- The buttons at the bottom need better visibility.
- The internal horizontal spacing of the bottom buttons is inconsistent with their vertical spacing. Their external spacing against the window's bottom edge is only slightly inconsistent with their lateral spacing with the window edge.
- All fuel everywhere will need to be noted in seconds for the Combat Fuel reading to make sense.
-
I don't care if someone uses saves to achieve ridiculous results, it has no effect on me at all. The only issue is if the game is designed around this out of context tool to effectively play the game. By the time the game gets hard, the game should have been smartly designed enough that I know how to handle setbacks without resorting to quick saves and saves.
However, and this is a big one, I do want saving to save every single state, and for loading to return the game to that state. The first Sword of the Stars would only save which turn you were in and the previous turn's progress, but not any changes to meters, routes, and tech. It was frequently annoying.
-
If I'm not mistaken, proficiency is something earned in training, which would allow for the addition of training badges. That would be nice.
This is the provisional list I have at my end for the 10 medals each soldier could (potentially) gain. The Orders and Service medals replace earlier medals, so you only have one of each type at any time. However, the Bravery gains are cumulative so the Dstinguished Service Medal would give you +3 Bravery.Crimson Heart – Wounded in Action (taken 50% health, rather just than being injured)
Military Cross – Kill five aliens on a single mission
Survival Medal – Only survivor of a victorious mission
Crux Solaris – Capture an alien leader alive
Saviour Medal - Kill an alien psion mind-controlling a friendly unit
Citation for Valor – Survive a victorious alien base attack mission, spending at least 100AP
Citation for Courage – Survive a victorious terror mission, spending at least 100AP
Citation for Bravery – Survive a victorious base defence mission, spending at least 100AP
Order of Gallantry – Kill 5 aliens (+1)
Order of Merit – Kill 10 aliens (+2)
Order of Terra – Kill 20 aliens (+3)
Service Medal – Survive 10 missions, spending at least 100AP each time (+1)
Long Service Medal – Survive 20 missions, spending at least 100AP each time (+2)
Distinguished Service Medal – Survive 30 missions, spending at least 100AP each time (+3)
I think that gives a decent mix of hard to get one-off medals, and those that will be achieved in time. A good soldier who has been around for say 15 missions should probably have about 5 medals on that list, I reckon.
Since we don't get anything for the Crimson Heart, why not make the requirement any injury cause by friend or foe, which excludes environment damage?
The Military Cross seems to be harder than the Order of Gallantry.
The Crux Solaris also seems like it would be harder and more praise worth than killing 10 aliens over an arbitrary time limit.
The Saviour Medal seems like something more praise worthy than the current Order medals. I also think the name can be better, but nothing comes to mind. Better named medals don't actually say what they're for. The final three Medals need better names, too.
I would take those three and make them the Order medals. The Saviour Medal would be +1, while the Crux Solaris and Military Cross are second or third depending on which is actually harder. In this system, since there is no fixed order, except probable difficulty, it would be worth showing all three simultaneously once achieved.
If it's cumulative, when we reach the Distinguished Service Medal we should have 5 more bravery, rather than 3, shouldn't we?
-
Good point bringing up what Chris said:
These aren't intended to make massive differences to the stats of the soldiers and they're not intended to be something you farm. As such, soldiers shouldn't necessarily be able to collect that many of them. They're just little distinctions to help you get more attached to your soldiers.
Taking that strictly, the baby step medals are the wrong direction, because they're too easy, and every soldier would get it almost right from the start.
That might mean a pure number-of-missions medals would actually be a good one, because keeping soldiers alive long term is so hard, and it can't be farmed except by really playing the game.
The medal for capturing alive a new alien subset works, because eventually you would run out of new types. Past a certain point it can't be farmed, and the rate of achieving that medal can't be forced ahead.
The medal for fighting on different continents is probably bad because its' too easy.
Marksmanship proficiency might be too easy. But, if the kill count exceeds the average mission life expectancy, then it could fit. If you need about 25% more missions than the average number you are expected to live, in order to get the required kill count, that might work well.
-
Okay:
- code the reserve increments into the paths, with more colors, so they are visible at all time
- and have a slider to hard-set the reserve, which doesn't change unless manually adjusted.
?
- code the reserve increments into the paths, with more colors, so they are visible at all time
-
My issue with achievements is that they're usually pointless make work. Who cares if you kill 10000 X, or saw all ten comic book covers? The former is just something anyone can do if they play long enough, and the latter doesn't add anything except an Easter Egg hunt. Both amount to artificial extension of the game's playtime by non-gameplay means.
In this case though it is good, since we'll get bonuses, the same way the first Mass Effect gave pertinent bonuses for killing reasonable amounts of X, gaining Y amount of money, or using Z character for a portion of the game. Simply playing the game with a little focus would gain you those awards. The focus itself is a good hidden instructional bonus.
- survived friendly fire
Black Cross - Survived your first night mission
Surviving friendly fire should really go under the medal for getting wounded. At the risk of achievement-ness, it might make sense giving a count to the Purple Heart equivalent just so you know how many times a soldier has been wounded. But, other than that I don't think it should grant stats, except maybe a single 1 point morale boost.
Black Cross may be a very good name replacement for the Purple Heart. As pointed out below, Xenonauts are an international force, not the US military, so it doesn't make sense for them to get Purple Hearts.
One issue with giving an award for night missions is you are encouraging the player to play recklessly, instead of smart. You should only take on a night mission if you don't have the time to wait.
There should be some modifiers, else you could just throw grenades or shoot your own men =pWe can also have the Blackwater achievement for killing civilians.
Well, yeah, there needs to be a spectrum of achievements for the medals. The participation badge is nothing but a confidence builder, while the rest actually mean things.yeah. There is the regular 'participate in one' but you don't even need to leave the landing craft to get that one. That's why I figured something hard like 'save all civilians.' Could also do one where you 'save all NPC soldiers' or 'complete secondary objective'?The thing about "save all civilians" on its own is, normally that wouldn't be the mission, it would be a side operation. It's why I think it needs to be lumped with other requirements. Also, so far, whether the civilians live or die has had more to do with dumb luck than my skill.
Also, just thinking about weapon useage medals, what about rather than 'x amount of kills' you have something like 'do x amount of damage with a weapon'? That way even if you don't kill the aliens, you still are working towards a medal. Perhaps that's too farm-like, but it's just an idea, and who knows, maybe it'll spark others...How would anyone know your bullet assisted in real life without forensic analysis? Besides, the goal shouldn't be making these easier to get, but reasonably difficult and skill based. Except for the introductory pat on the back medal everyone gets which take no skill, and the hardest which I think should combine equal high skill and good luck.
Bibidibop: Xenonauts is a private organization as far as i know. i dont think it can give out oher armies medals. and i also think that would be annoying and pointless codeing.My thought was that if the personnel sent to the Xenonauts are on loan and still officially in their original militaries, then they would still get their nation's highest military honor. However, if Xenonaut personnel are officially detached from their native militaries, then you would be absolutely right, and Xenonauts will need an X of Honor medal. Ha! That could be their highest medal, the Honor Cross, with the cross in the shape of an X.
I didn't say it was a damage bonus.It could be a morale bonus, you have managed to take one down before, why should you be afraid of it now?
On the realism end of things, simply having faced a particular type of alien in battle and surviving will be enough to have a little more bravery. When tanks were first faced in World War I, the Germans got routed. But, the second time, they were a little more clear headed, and they eventually figured out tactics.
I think the only medals which should gain weapon bonuses are the highest combo achievement medals, a marksmanship medal, and explosives medal. A fire support medal might make sense, too.
For example a medal for successfully capturing a new alien type/rank.
That would be perfect as a first level heroic medal. It's reasonably dangerous, useful, unusual, yet repeatable.
-
I dislike the achievement style medals and medal names greatly.
For instance, just using grenades or rockets shouldn't get you anything. You should have to use all forms of explosives extensively, and it should result in a general explosives aptitude medal. For a marksmanship medal, you should need X kills using pistols and rifles.
I think the highest order should be based on the soldier's country of origin. If American, he gets the Medal of Honor, if Japanese he gets the Order of the Rising Sun, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_%28decoration%29
To reach that, you have to be amazing, so the requirements need to be extremely difficult.
-Capture 100 aliens and kill 1000 over course of career, and in one mission capture 10 aliens, be the sole survivor, achieve all mission goals. It should be like that, the specifics aren't too important since I have no idea what is realistic yet for the game.
The lowest should be extremely simple.
Acceptable Service Medal - Survive first mission.
That's the equivalent of the lowest kind of medal/ribbon you can get in real life, and fits nicely with how hard Xenonauts should be.
Then:
(Medium place holder name) Medal - Single mission, 5 caps, 5 kills, no civilian deaths, no team deaths.
I like the campaign medal idea for serving on various continents.
As for the Purple Heart equivilient, which definitely needs its own name, it should not have a wound limit. I think the only requirement should be getting wounded at all, even by 1 hit point. The actual Purple Heart places no distinction of type or severity of wound for the sake of being issued. All that really matters is that it happens in combat with an enemy, and that the damage is done by an enemy, or by friendly action in combat. Also, POW's punished in violation of the Geneva Convetion.
Making the MIG researchable?
in Xenonauts General Discussion
Posted · Edited by Bibidibop
It's not that you would have to manufacture the F-17, it is that you can build it as well as buy it. That way it introduces the logic of building a MiG from scratch before that even happens, and maintains consistency in capability. Under the same logic, I had assumed the MiG was buildable and purchasable as well, with only alien based technologies being purely non-purchasable.
The fourth bay is actually full of fire control electronics. Given 16 years between its first flight and the Xenonauts in '79, it's reasonable that the fire control equipment and radar could be made small enough that the fourth bay could hold a missile. If anything, giving it a smaller radar would keep the F-17's radar advantage.
I would actually make the YF-12, which would be the AF-12, the AF-12X, give it much lower turning than the MiG, and further reduced durability.