Conductiv

I currently see no real way to get past the snowball problem that comes with strategy/tactical games... Not that you can't make the game harder as to force a series of wins..resulting in any setback causing a deathspiral that inadvertently causes a game over. but generating a system that would still allow for recovery after a setback..without giving people that have no setbacks a free pass to the finish line. while also allowing this system to function in multiple difficulties without having to HP/dmg/attack bloat the adversaries. the main benefit of winning the fight is better strategical benefits (resources, money, relics, tech and soldier XP) that translate themselves into tactical benefits (better soldier stats from XP, better weapons from tech and rare resources, more support structures in the base from the money) losing on the other hand...well it has to mean something, so you don't get those befinits...you often even have to lose some strategical benifits to get back to where you where before you started the botched mission. the setbacks often make it harder to recover while you often don't have any way to effectively catch back up. one way to reduce the impact of the benefits would be to ramp up alien aggressiveness to the player faster if the player deals more (overt) damage to alien activity in a relatively short span of time, but less if the player proves less effective against alien activity, or inflicts damage slower/less obvious. it does not remove the snowball problem, but will generate a optimum activity...where going on to many (smash n' grab) missions quickly would actually ramp the enemy power well above what you would gain in benefits, where a commander that would simply do everything he can do and get the maximum out of every mission, will just recklessly paint himself into a corner. a solution for the "A-team saves the world" problem was already proposed in a fatigue/stress system (effectively though, this would just create more A-teams...but it will slow down the power ramp in every individual soldier)

X1 made good use of shields as reaction fire catchers while fighting in confined quarters, or as mobile cover providers during the exploration phase of the battle...as to not have the point man instantly plastered when a alien went around the corner...the no-shields counter to this problem would have been completing every mission at a snails pace as to have enough TU's left to react against enemies doing the "bolt around the corner and unload" tactic pistols did identical damage per shot to an assault rifle and had a range and reaction fire multiplier identical to a shotgun, this wasn't bad as most enemies died in 2-3 shots and the pistols shots where cheap enough TU-wise to fire 3 in a round. so pistols remained viable throughout the game...well.. the biggest problem X1 had loadout wise was that early game the high accuracy precision rifle allowed for reliable hitting, the pistol could compete with this in confined areas. but the late game was dominated with dudes at 80+ str 100 stam and 80+ acc so they just moved around using a LMG like it was a submachinegun. when you have a team of rambo that can use 10-shot-bursts of high damage rounds like it is nothing...a semi-automatic pistol looks rather weak (just like ANY other weapon for that matter, even the close range shotgun couldn't match the LMG in damage potential), the much heavier armor also allowed for a much larger margin of error..in the early game you would instantly die..in the lategame you can take the hit so shields started to become less important..but still useful

This game is a turn based tactical with the goal to dominate the AI. as your troops complete missions, they become better allowing the player to have a feeling of attachment to them. however, if the game is challenging enough, you will often see players use the same dudes over and over...and then you get the "A-team saves the world" problem. realistically this is solved by the fact that soldiers do not become significantly better past a few deployments, and the same dudes cannot be everywhere at once. now in the game where missions are fed to player in a piece by piece fashion, you would need some sort of incentive for the player to mix up his team...it seems chris will be implementing a stress system that would prevent the player from constantly fielding the same squad. ideally you would want about 20-30 dudes to rotate around, this number is small enough to become invested in them and big enough that they would not simply considered 1 team with backup meat. however, the larger to rotation, the more impact this has on the actual length of the game, as it does take X missions to "level" a squad, meaning 3 teams will need 3*X missions just to "level" for endgame content. in effect a rotation system can also bloat your game to an extend it is no longer fun to play. personally I dislike adding fodder teams like the proposed recon squads, as it takes away from the main game ( turn based tactical) and just staples another minigame on top. it doesn't actually solve the A team saves the world problem, nor does it actually change the feel of commanding a large military organisation. (as in the players hands they will have no more value then a set of fighter jets)

air combat, we'll get a better picture in the next update..but so far it looks okay. inventory system, please keep the belt and have it interact differently then the backpack grid. I'm just worried that whole bit will be swept under the rug and the belt would be basically nailed to the backpack as a number of bonus slots. modular armor good change in theory, just make sure the options for it all have their own appeal..for example..having great chemical protection is never going to be used if all but 1 rare alien will ever use chemical attacks. its great to have a bag of tools...not so great if every problem is best solved with the hammer. floating alien brain monster, well they are aliens so there is definitely room for weird looks..as long as weird doesn't become ridiculous and nonsensical.

love these updates, air combat part is definitely an important aspect, it is a tactical minigame you will be playing an awful lot in the onset of missions, so its important to make it play well..as to not make it a drag when you do it for the tenth time or more, without it taking away too much from the core gameplay. in effect you are making a game in a game that you cannot really avoid like lockpicking mini-games in the elder scrolls franchise, or gwent in the witcher 3 AI also greatly affects how the game plays, for example X1 had a very prominent "alien hiding in the corner of the command room" problem, or aliens with a strange fascination for the UFO door that they kept walking back-and-forth through. or the AI making obvious kamikazi moves like running into the open to toss a grenade, or teleporting in the middle of a squad About the inventory please do not forget to have a distinct difference between belt and backpack slots, in X1 the difference was in my experience practically unnoticeable.

In the soldiers thread updated opening post, the example number given by Chris was 25KG...do keep in mind that it was only an example, and that part is still subject to possible change

personally I prefer it if they keep psionics an alien only maneuver, and add in the requirement that the aliens would only be able to execute psionic attacks from a source that can visibly see the player characters. personally I don't mind high tech soldiers that can shoot a musquito's balls off at 100 yards...however I would be less invested if my squad turns into X-men with magic fireballs and mindreaders running around I also generally oppose over-saturation with guaranteed hit effects, if the player gets any skill, weapon or tool that is guaranteed to hit and damage the enemy...they are likely to spam the living daylights out of it. this is obvious in X-com, where the destroy cover>nail it with your gun approach is near guaranteed to land in later zones. on top of the high popularity of skills like soulfire, stasis, null lance, combat protocol etc etc. basically most skills that boost guaranteed hit maneuvers, nades, heavy weapons or are guaranteed hits themselves If the AI just gets a lot of units that don't care about cover or accuracy (by having guaranteed hit abilities or super armor) you basically get the situation that you have to burst them down or they will start killing people, rendering cover and gunplay moot. this is a problem in the higher levels of X-com2 where a lot of endgame enemies don't really care about cover and have abilities that are guaranteed to damage soldiers when they are used.

I find 2 things very important when talking about loadouts, 1. I should be flexible in what I can carry, and not be limited to a single primary weapon. single primairy setup would put the game dangerously close to firaxis X-com...since it limits load-out combo's akin to their class system. 2. belt slots/secondairy slots (slots dedicated to ammo, grenades or small weapons/items like batons, medkits and pistols) should allow for lower TU cost drawing relative to "backpack" level slots, with the latter being able to carry large gear like an additional primairy. this is mostly to distinguish between the cluncky backpack and the quick access of on uniform pockets. this game still has ammo management as a factor, that is a positive in my book..having infinite ammo just feels off.

if they get this done right, that would be sweeet, it does require equipment that is better in specialized situations. X1 had a lot of generic equipment, and the only difference between tool 1 and tool 2 of the same tech line was often damage versus clunkyness. (and in many cases damage won, so lots of xenonauts 1 endgame seemed to turn into LMG madness..as the engame high strength+high TUs combo countered the LMG's high TU cost to fire and penalty when used at low str)

it makes it a lot more interesting, but it depends on how common these reactor parts are. the player needs this power to progress its base, if the parts are rare..the player success would be completely dependent on RNG. if the parts are locked behind specific missions that occur on a set interval, the entire campaigns success might hinge on the success or failure (to show up on/) of a single mission. if the parts are extremely common, you get the same problem as just having a cheap generator.

well is the issue that it allows for more attacks with this specific weapon an actual problem?...isn't it more like a balancing lever that can be pulled. much like in X1 you could run up to xeno's and unload a couple of snap shotgun blasts, allowing for huge spike damage. having a SMG that can land multiple bursts from a stationary position wouldn't be an immediate problem. I am assuming that the system will keep the %TU used per attack, so leveling up doesn't allow for spamming burst fire any more then you would when you where a rookie. single attack action is used most of the time when moving in X1, but one of the benefits was that when your units where in advantageous positions, they could opt to forfeit movement for more attacks..this is a benefit given by not having a dedicated attack action. and you could, if so desired, opt for different shot strings, snap-snap-snap-move/turn, burst-normal, normal-snap-snap, aimed-normal (assault rifle), that would give a similar bell curve level of accuracy. single attack action also often comes with a lot of games introducing skills to use that other side of the action for things other then simply movement. throwing grenades, going into over-watch, going into a hunker mode or whatnot. personally...especially when the unit is armed with a semi or fully automatic weapon..I feel this makes little sense. (as there will naturally be situations where moving is undesired, and if attacking is impossible..the remaining Tu's are effectively wasted..as it would be odd if you can't fire your gun..but could magically toss a grenade or bandage up) and when units movement cost is tied to their active weapon, wouldn't having 2 primary weapons complicate this system (1 in backpack, 1 active), what movement penalty is used? does it become an average penalty? what happens when instead of using another primary you simply fill the BP up with blocks of C4...or ammo? now attack and move action systems are tried and proven concepts, and I am pretty sure it will work when tried in X2...I'm just not entirely sure it has many more pro's over cons relative to the current X1 style non-action specific TU system.

isn't battletechs colored text block loadout system effectively a tetris system, it just doesn't allow for any horizontally parallel slots (yes 1 dimentional, and tetris is already 2D) and BT definitely uses weight as a parameter, actually in most cases it is either BT's hardpoint system, or its weight system that limits loadouts. (talking the recent videogame, not the tabletop) the main benifit BT has in this aspect that with just colored textblocks they don't really have to worry about poorly fitted images, and for a game about giant robots that works. personally I wouldn't try to fiddle with the tetris system too much, in my eyes it is making a whole new system to solve a very minor problem. if you just want a single BP slot, make it just big enough to fit 1 primairy, what is it 2X5. and have the belt's L shape allow for a single sidearm/utility+ a few tiny items like magazines or grenades. this gives the player 8 slots that he can quickly draw small items from, and 10 slots that he can... at great cost..drag either 1 big item from or lots of smaller ones. I find it hard to believe if someone would have problems micro-managing 10 BP slots for hauling corpses, well that is 1 area where I prefer the newer X-coms approach over X1's...I found it hilarious you could stuff a corpse in your backpack for like 3 TU's and then move around with your weapon out. I dunno who suggested it, but there was a person that suggested reducing the weapons TU cost to fire, so show that it is a faster operating automatic weapon then a assault rifle is. I'd hate to see them go, as PDW's and SMG's have been making their name on the battlefield for decades, and they where used a lot during the height of the cold war. by reducing TU costs for snap, normal and burst while maintaining a high reflex multiplier it could still somewhat compete with the pistols and the shotgun, in close quarters..where it should have greater range then the machinepistol, better accuracy and a larger mag on single shots then the standard pistol, a much cheaper and much more abundant..but less powerful snapshot/normal shot then a shotgun.

personally I think what Chris is trying to avoid, is the instant switch & use between "shotgun and sniper" as the shotgun covers a weakness the sniper has. not so much the ability to carry 2 primaries (something that I actually really liked about X1 was the ability to do just that) so limiting slot count to make that impossible is counterproductive. and I was a tad surprised that he used the fact that you will have down turns that the soldier can sacrifice to switch weapons, as a reason to add the flat TU penalty. now if you want to make a dedicated class less effective at being a jack of all trades they can use their current fledgling skill system to promote specialization. in that case the sniper will always be less effective with weapons other then his rifle (as that is where a sniper would have, most likely..invested his skills) -I agree the carry capacity can be moved away from strength, this prevents people from trying to game the system by loading their soldiers up to the limit with only the intend to train that stat. strength could still be used as a stat to govern thrown weapons, heavy weapons and possibly melee if this is represented adequately in this sequel. -personally I don't like bonus slots when you gain certain armors or upgrades, at least not without a significant drawback to acquiring them, heavy mechanized armor would have the merit of improved strength, but it doesn't add extra pockets, and even if it did the armor would impede with interaction. this means those armors would be more beneficial to the use of heavier weapons, but would have a hard time manipulating grenades. for the game-play, getting the extra armor should be the primary benefit, the bonus strength is a side effect and that part should come at a cost as well -adding an additional flat TU cost to carrying around bonus gear can have 2 outcomes, it is either so small that people ignore it..or it will be so crippling that you get people doing exactly what you say...load up and then ditch it upon landing to pick it up later. one is wasted time on an mechanic, the other is having a mechanic that doesn't seem to add much game-play merit. about SMG's, most SMG's to my knowledge are 2 handed, and should not be combined with a shield, adding in a machinepistol group (while allowing the MP's to act like a pistol in any other way) would render the pistol as a weapon obsolete. so I definitely hope they never do that.

personally I'm for huge TU penalties if you draw another primary (or well basically anything from the backpack). in my suggestion it was half TU to pull, half TU to stow..you can use a sling on a primary to avoid having to stow it..provided whatever you pull can be used in 1 hand. and the backpack would be limited to 1 large item, or 4 small ones (size 1 or 2, mags, grenades, ammo boxes and C4 charges) the large item could be every primary save the shield. (the "or" is very important here...it is the small items like bonus mags or the extra gun...not both) my suggestion revolved around 2 pivotal change that are apparently in the current beta builds, primary weapons should not grant bonuses not related to their use (aka no speed, TU, strength, HP, armor or whatnot bonuses) and item pickup should not be cheap TU wise (otherwise drop + pull followed by a shot and a pickup next round would be superior to stowing the weapon, firing next round, and then switching back) the belt could hold 1 utility item (6 large items in X1, basically pistol, medkit, or stun baton) and 2 tiny items (1 size, mags, grenades), basically 8 tiles worth of equipment. pulling from or stowing in the belt would cost a minor set amount of TU. if your equipped primary has a sling, you can hold the primary without having to stow or drop it, provided the item pulled from the belt can be used in 1 hand. The belt+ sling combo would act like a quick draw stash for things you want on hand, but it can only hold non-primary size items...in order to avoid people from using the belt only to store rare-to-use items and fill the BP up with ammo and nades to use from the quickslots, ANY item drawn from the backpack, regardless of weight or size...takes half TU. this alone allows for crazy builds like having a RPG+LMG (with limited ammo available) but equipment load can be used to limit those options, if this is required...as taking these loadouts restrict ammunition and flexibility from what I'm reading, people wouldn't really care that much if strength is removed as the stat governing equipment load, it can used to govern grenade throwing range* and heavy weapons proficiency (or even hand to hand, if needed). training this stat would then also naturally revolve around using these weapons, not loading your soldier up just to train strength. from what I understand, most people wouldn't mind "equipment load" is just a pre-set max value. *I still feel the throwing accuracy should be governed by the accuracy stat and related training in grenade throwing.

I prefer the the backpack+belt+body inventory system, over the what you suggest body+utility+secondary system. 1.it allows the carrying of 2 primaries, (notably niche primaries like shotguns and rocket/grenade launchers)...big secondary weapons balance themselves out by being bulky or just plain big. switching between them is also not an instant affair. this does require that primaries do not get bonus stats that affect non-weapon related stats like TU count, movement speed or carry weight. any interaction with the backpack should require half the TU's of a turn. (meaning that pulling a primary out and storing your current primary is a full turn) 2. I really liked the idea of the belt slot, not that much its actual implementation in X1. As the belt had a slot big enough to fit the pistol, if the belt gave you the option to draw this weapon quickly it would give the pistol a unique capability no other primary would have. without having to sacrifice the medkit (with a pistol in the belt, you would naturally have less space for mags or grenades on the belt...limiting access to quicker reloads and nade tosses) belt slot interaction would require significantly less TU's. (other small weapons like the stun baton could be used in a similar fashion to the pistol, as can utility items like motion detectors or medkits) *I would advocate the addition of the ability to mount slings on weapons, allowing them to be carried but not used in 1 hand for the duration belt slot/1-handed backpack items are used, improving the usability of belt slot interaction. 3. the body is what you carry on you at this time, armor, weapon, tool or nade per hand. basically the equip screen minus utility slot. to counteract some of the negative aspects of having a backpack and usable belt slot. -backpack options are extremely limited, allowing only 1 primary or sizable utility or up to 4 belt sized items (nades, C4, mags)...this be easily show-able where in your idea the utility item would be. shields are exception is the fact that they are extremely big and basically unable to be fit on or in a backpack in any reasonable fashion. -heavy weapon ammo is bigger in the belt then rifle/pistol ammo and handgrenades. 3 boxes of LMG ammo is notably clunkier to carry around then 3 mags of AR/pistol rounds -a small bar under the UI could show the content of the belt, allowing full visibility of the loadout. this would require a small shrinking of the portrait -backpack content is unrelated to strength, if a explanation is needed one could state that the number of items is limited because they have to be accessed quickly in the heat of battle...meaning a limited amount of items can be pocketed or strapped in. in the equip UI, this can be shown as a backpack with 4 small pockets and 1 big center pocket, putting anything in the center crosses out all other slots, using the 2 size side slots crosses out the center. if a cross is not an option a mass of various non-intractable stuffs like food, boots and waterskins could be moved to the non accessible slot. -high TU cost of large weapon switching prevents the instant covering up of a weakness, this action has to be premeditated, belt switching by using notably smaller weapons at the cost of readily available grenade and ammo capacity allows slight covering of a weakness at a cost.