• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

4 Neutral

About Conductiv

  • Rank
  1. well shot chance to hit is basically comprised out of 2 factors, the weapons user and the weapon itself. weapon wise, lasers have no travel time over distance (lasers would be much faster then bullets, plasma bolts* or railgun slugs) , so provided the laser is actually powerful enough* you would require no lead nor would you have to account for drop or most other environmental factors(2). this would make then notably easier to aim beyond point blank range. *suspension of disbelief needed, as laser/plasma tech have rather difficult hurdles to take when it comes to effectively weaponizing them. notably that they dissipate quickly over distance and it often takes time for the heat to stack up sufficiently to cause damage. this on top of the ludicrous amounts of energy required for these weapons 2. lasers don't actually have a solid piercing projectile, meaning that smoke or fog would rapidly dissipate the beam, in effect a smoke grenade would completely neuter laser based weapons. certain hot and cold based optical effects might also distort the weapon. when it comes to the user, well unless the gun itself has an aim assist computer the gunman is not going to be any more accurate..and while the game is turn based enemy combatants are not actually standing still. it is certainly still possible to miss. this leads me to 3 conclusions -laser weapon accuracy should still depend on the gunner, but may have a bonus to-hit for targets at medium range and beyond -laser weapon range is effectively hard, beyond the listed range they simply won't have enough juice-per-shot to effect a target. unlike a ballistic weapons damage that starts tapering off. -laser weapon could interact much harsher with concealment effects like smoke and shrubbery
  2. ah well...maybe we get some alenium powered gizmo that facilitates (safe) movement a bit more. varied mission types a fine idea but please do avoid general turn timers, that particular part of Xcom 2 (the feeling of being rushed to dash your squad halfway across the map to an objective, lest I lose squad-members and/or fail) was definitely not something I was enjoying. it was too much stick too little carrot
  3. what I am wondering about is most of all the changes that speed up the gameplay on the tactical layer, X1 was a good game but the tactical layer was very slow to always sorta ended up being a slow creep to the ship followed by a slow creep through the dahm thing trying to weed out every corner hugging alien in there. not things that make me literally play the game faster, no things that makes it less like a "overwatch creep" for lack of a better term. personally I really do like the firaxis Xcom's, naturally with their higher budget they can afford much better graphical fidelity to improve immersion during cutscenes, better animations etc etc. (X1 actually did a solid job with its immersion through audio..keep that up..) battles are more volatile because they use squads rather then single aliens and its recent iteration stealth system really speeds up the pace (but it is also borderline broken with how easy it can be used to exploit the AI) now it does have downsides, most of all the Xcom squads are dinky and have little battlefield support (its only 6 guys and they have no vehicles) and the troops turn into gods as they rank up (breaking the turn system with bonus shots and actions) to top it off the loadout and class system was restrictive (X1's weight based system was much better) and especially during the mid and late game aliens practically never use their main weapons. they just melee/psi-power/rocket/nade/spit etc effectively rendering their whole cover system moot...half of them don't even use cover they just stand in the open with mythical defense bonuses and a metric ton of HP. (in X1 aliens shoot...and later on...they still shoot and they didn't get excessively tanky) late game players in Xcom just take cover out of habit more then actual necessity.
  4. from the information shared by the developer so far, what you fear seems to be the direction they want to go into. -the secret organisation direction is chosen because it makes it lore wise more logical that you have innately limited resources, rather then being a globally funded anti-alien organisation that somehow has to come by with a pittance of money, low skilled recruits and a handful of planes. a discrepancy that apparently bothered the developer. -since a secret organisation doesn't fight all out wars he also wants to change the alien strategy from war/geneharvesting to an infiltrator style combat where the aliens control humans and manipulate governments on a path of selfdestruction. while the dev didn't state that terror missions will be gone, it is highly unlikely given the setting that aliens will perform a high profile action that is hard to covered up. -the developer has apparently stated that he dislikes multi-tile units like vehicles as they cause all sorts of issues when moving around, and that he would much rather not have them in the game because of it. -the dev has stated that he wants to lean more towards a gameplay mix of the current firaxis Xcom and a mercenary management game called jagged alliance 2, taking elements from both franchises. in particular the covert ops from war of the chosen, a guerrilla missions pick-1-of-3 style (so you can't do every mission) from Xcom2, and a limited roster of specific personnel with various costs depending on their skills from jagged alliance. about Xcom having vehicles, the original one in the 90's did...the firaxis reboot does not
  5. it is something that happens in games where the weapon has a range greater then the users LOS, for gameplay reasons LOS is restricted..but in order to give some long range weapons the correct feel, they have a range longer then a soldiers sight IRL people can see quite a bit further then the ranges shown in this game...actually, barring a obstruction or lack of light, we can see all the way to the horizon..beyond a certain distance our vision blurs and things become practically unidentifiable, but they don't just vanish. (in order to assist with long range optical indentification, various optics like scopes and binoculars can be used, turning a dot on a hill into a lighthouse) now when firing at something far away that isn't identifiable (but has an unobstructed straight line of sight to it) it is definitely still possible to aim your weapon. so I can't say I agree with your reason you should only be able to snap/burst at it
  6. first option is more intuitive, it also allows the player to set up his own teams and doesn't get straight jacketed into "must hire these guys to get a workable team" scenario. the multi-class problem is what I'm most worried the most common solution would be to make specialist classes barely more effective then a jack-of-all-trades resulting in the optimum being a team macguyver. needless to say..I want specialists to be worth it. this can be partially solved by not strictly dividing jobs into combat/science/engineering jobs..a dedicated combat medic might be leaning more to science (as he will be adept in autopsies and studies with regards to compounds/techniques used for disabling) meaning that doing science would also boost the medic stat (it is notable that the medic stat does not increase a troopers killing potential...and hence does not thread on the more combat training based day-jobs) this can be done with various side tasks (hacking/sabotage) bullet trajectories etc are distinctly soldier tasks, however finding the nice pieces of loot etc are the engineers suits (material properties, construction methods, suitable stuff to reverse engineer), while hacking panels might be more science-y (cryptology, sifting data for useful numbers or coordinates) improved loot and intel gains might be a suitable benefit of fielding these people...however, they should have a few more utility added benefits (as having just economical benefits to fielding the units makes little sense) . this is mostly difficult with regards to the engineering job, as building stuff mid-combat seems unlikely, so far the only plausible option I can come up with is sabotage an action that might disable some aspects of a ship/base without actually damaging that component (blowing it up would probably be faster..but loud and obvious). point is that if a commander wants to field these people he should have another job for them in mind then shooting/blowing up aliens/collaborators (this is extremely important, if a scientist becomes better then a soldier at killing, soldiers become moot so the benefits of these disciplines should not involve weapons handling or improvements) . medics, hackers, spies, saboteurs etc...and on the base these relevant skills should be trained in the science, communication or engineering discipline.
  7. love the idea, but you need to have some suspension of disbelief with regards to penetrating laser beams etc. now gameplay wise you could play around with it, having "special shots" by carrying mags of special munitions or draining more battery charge (when using plasma/laser tech) for shots with different damage, range and penetration statistsics. this can be used partially, the environment affecting behavior might be more demanding.
  8. I'm on the fence, while I do like these kinds of systems they usually add very little with regards to the gameplay. -gamebalance wise, in many cases where players can bypass cover/defences it is designed in such a way that it doesn't really matter in the end (the defense can be bypassed, but this particular unit is either extremely numerous, has a failsafe or has a very high HP pool to offset its weakness) -enemy AI wise, they either always go for the center off mass, resulting in a sort of RNG what limb is going to get hit, or they go for the bypass..making armor either useless or unreliable. (random 1-shot scenario) -while limbshots might sound great, in most cases players either go for highest chance to hit or highest damage per shot. rarely...if ever...has a game made disabling the opponent by shooting arms a worthwhile endeavor. -there are rumors about that X2 will not feature any multi-tile playable units (aka vehicles) so even if the bypass would be made would likely only apply to humanoids. so in the end you end with a system and a lot of work to set that up...that really doesn't really do much for this type of game
  9. I don't like bullet sponges as bosses, and even though it is simple I would prefer some other method of not getting the boss instantly capped. about as well as it would be spotted during daytime...not. hence the reason for only flying by night is from my point of view purely mechanical. I know what you mean, I also know that if you make them easily replaceable the veteran soldiers will have practically no value, and this is probably the main reason the described problem is not trivial. now why I'm not spending a wall of text on it (and was really just kidding around with it) is because it has all been done before, there is no reason to re-invent the wheel you got me there you joker, I was thinking about a dev making any hints towards the total game length and since Chris didn't make any comments regarding that in this thread..
  10. I love these updates, and I'd love to read those "1000 words forum posts about a balancing detail", especially with some notoriously hard to balance aspects like the stealth function you wanted to implement. not only to go at them with a comment sledgehammer, but also because that kind of posts shows us what exactly you envision with such mechanics, or with certain tools/aspects of the game
  11. you bring up a lot of points, but lets just first say that realism is not a major point of the game (we are taking turns fighting infiltrating aliens). hence the only fly by night was a minor concern, as it is only there to make the work/action system work. this doesn't mean that supersonic flight at extreme altitude with stealth technology would be extremely unlikely to get spotted during daytime as well as night-time. about bosses, well there are many ways to do bosses or big baddies, not all encompass some dude with the supernatural ability to take enough bullets to the face to sink a battleship. also story wise a smart infiltrator would probably not be a tank it isn't all that beneficial for the infiltrating bit...having lots of goons though might be thematically more appropriate. well the problem with very limited personnel and forced sidetrack specialty/combat is that you basically get a stew where everyone does everything, you get the grunt that gets his science PhD because he doesn't have anything better to do then help the dudes in the lab (and totally not be a hindrance as he is banging rocks together in the corner). and Einstein becomes a navy seal because well..apparently his commander felt it was a good idea to give the lab professor some extra edge by having his hair seared off by plasma bolts. oh and naturally we have some random dude that just opened his first technical manual repair our stealth technology enhanced supersonic dropship...that will totally not go wrong. ...the main problem is its effect on game-play, you are forced to go either short handed or with a dude that has no real business there through game restrictions. that is unless those specialties are capable of doing something on the battlefield other then shoot, and combat troops in the base other also depends on the value of specialization, if being a specialist at anything isn't really valued, the above scenario is much more likely to occur. funny thing about turn based tactical games where you build a team, your team is usually better then the random dudes you recruit from the roster. well for good gameplay you would naturally have to replace every loss you encounter with a exact copy of what you just lost. (in case the sarcasm detectors are not going into overdrive right really shouldn't be that easy to replace) now there are cases where units would have to be quickly replaced with a similar and almost as skilled unit...this would be a RTS where the lethality of the opponents actions is really high and the value of your troops isn't..but when you build a team and every member is a considerable investment in effort and time, they should not be easily replaced by the ingame "soldier factory" and their veterancy should be worth something. training room concepts have been used somewhat in this regard, either as a method to let rookies catch up (as usually the initial amount required for low stats is very low) or to augment the skills of veteran personnel (Xcom 2 covert missions do give stat bonuses, but on the total these veterans already have it is usually not all that significant) I haven't really read anything that hinted towards the total game length, I do find a few weeks ingame time to be extremely unlikely though
  12. I have hoped for a more battlefield oriented sequel as well, as one of the things that attracted me to X1 was the addition of vehicles (that they proved to be extremely clunky is besides the point) but I do like the middle sized squads of personal soldiers as used in X1 and the newer Xcom installments...I'm not much of a squad-of-riflemen focused player. but I am more then willing to sacrifice that vision for a more in depth commando-strike-team like gameplay, provided I don't get pestered by timers every mission. this will indeed put it in close competition with Xcom2. it does have a few notable twists to that formula that I like though. it also has a fair few comments that do worry me though.. I for one loathe the idea of bullet sponges, that weapon X isn't effective versus opponent Y because of armor or something like that (like a pistol on a tank) isn't a problem, provided you can cook his ass with a is when you have a dude with 400-500 HP that you have to chip off by shooting it repeatedly. Xcom franchise rulers and chosen don't interest me as a concept because they don't fight better, they just take longer to down. the very limited personnel roster while also placing key strategical personnel on it, smaller teams and fighting scientists and engineers...what I see is shoving a gun in a civilians hands, while there is no compelling reason why this civilian is deployed on said mission to begin with. hiring them because they add a strategical benefit is a sound reason to get them to work in the lab/workshop/comms station, but even less of a reason to deploy them in combat if they have no other job then to shoot the enemy (they are much more valuable elsewhere)...I fear restriction and financial constraints will be used here to get people to deploy them, also repeated comments regarding training-wheel constructions that make these units more effective when pressed into combat (can get to higher end weapons faster and have access to higher accuracy weapons at the cost of damage on similar tiers). I do not have a problem with enticing people to use non-combat personnel in a combat mission, it can be a very interesting design...but they do need a viable reason for deployment, hence I did make a suggestion where they could use their other skills for non-combat support. (combat support would make them directly compete with soldiers and would defeat the reason for deploying combat oriented classes) note that with what developers have currently shared you don't really have dedicated scientists, you have the option to make a full team macgyver if you so please with no dedicated combat or strategical personnel...I do hope that specialization in any one branch beats generalists in potency though. daytime job combo with nighttime mission is only a minor flag, but it just doesn't make much sense in 1980's + storyline. technology had advanced enough by that point that visual identification of an aircraft or naval vessel was no longer needed. basically flying by night or day would make no real difference. however at daytime strategical personnel would be at its best providing science, production and credit points on the daytime job. soldiers...I dunno what they are supposed to do, my original concept was that they would work on their body (HP, TU, STR stats) or at the range (ACC), where they would improve their combat related benifits. (developers did not state there will be any day-time training facilities for combat heavy personnel..I just assumed they would be there much like the labs and workshops for strategical troops) it does seem however that armor will heavily..and maybe even completely dictate those numbers. also because of the significant strategical benefit of credits/production and science it is likely that on the strategical level you get soldiers pressed in the lab during daytime. basically auto-generating team macgyver. comfort levels of troops, fatigue recovery is not a problem (counteracts A-team saves the world problem that occurs when a player can...provided no casualties or significant injuries... just constantly deploy the same squad), but having to adapt base layout for comfort levels brings up a comparison with rimworld where I would have to fear for mental breakdowns because rooms arn't pretty enough. not a mechanic that I'm looking for in this type of game. threat, stealth, and knock-enemy out of the fight system are still a bit foggy...stealth can very easily become a broken mechanic but it can also open up the battlefield a lot faster.
  13. Its just my opinion but, they should all be useful on the battlefield, otherwise it would be unfeasible to field them...unless you absolutely have you have stated ways around this through weapon constriction (need stat X to use a gun) maybe you want to bypass this by constricting funds in such a way that having a worthwhile tech advance is impossible while also maintaining a team of capable soldiers. I made the suggestion based on what I assumed was a desire to find a suitable role for their trained stats on the tactical map, other then the base side research/repair/production units. in my suggestion the measure of usefulness would depend on the mission type...if your goal is to secure by elimination not being a good shot and in great physical shape is a serious handicap (I'm taking physical condition and gun-proficiency is a soldiers strength). and if your goal is to hack information from a datanetwork, not knowing how to use the alien interface might result in it being a very time consuming task as you'll have to copy the whole bloody thing. the usefulness of your troops depends on how often you need to have something done. a few hypothetical situations to elaborate on what I'm trying to say. -a game where you have axes and swords, axes get resources and can be used in combat at a terrible rating, swords are good at combat...would you willingly field axes and the battlefield knowing they are terrible at doing what you want them to do there? -a game where you have axes and swords, axes can get resources and are capable of mincing armor while dealing less damage, swords chop up unarmored targets fast and while capable against armor, cannot actually remove it resulting in *lost* damage. the rate of armored versus unarmored combat missions is for argument sake 50-50 would you ever field axemen instead of swordsmen in this scenario? on the flipside...would you completely ditch swords? -a game where you have axes and swords, axes get resources and can be used in combat at a terrible rate. now the axemen gets a long-knife as substitute weapon when send in combat, it acts like a weaker yet easier to use tool then a sword. would you still willingly field the long-knife users if swordsmen are available? -a game where you have a hacker that can get resources and he can also pling away with a pistol, and a soldier that is rambo on speed. the mission is to hack a console who would you pick? -a game where you have a hacker *etc*. the mission is to clear a base...who would you pick? in go the pieces are equal, does this make the game less complex then chess? its not just the interaction between the pieces now I may have misinterpreted what you are going for, because I'm interpreting the post as "having (a) unit(s) that is (are) tactically extremely weak and only there to round out the squad is good for tactical decision making" followed by a reference to chess. now in my experience when it comes to computer games, when a unit is all round weak it is generally not or extremely rarely build/used unless it is basically a stepping stone to something better.
  14. well I am hoping that the meat of the game will encompass me fielding troops that are competent for the mission at hand, not a few soldiers and the rest plucked together brainiacs and monkey wrenches to round out the squad. so I do hope full squads do appear earlier then just late game (endgame squad of only 8?)...especially when they are supposed to fight a X-COM2 chosen level alien adversary, or when pressed with turn-limits. maybe I'm wrong in thinking the the scientists are actual scientists and the engineers actual engineers, not just "smart/technically savvy soldiers". It all depends on how personnel/soldier progression is set up. more tools and equipment is always welcomed, however you make it sound like you are adding training wheels so incompetent troopers can actually contribute rather then expanding the options pool. I'd like to think more in the way of "what benefit would bringing the labrat (on the tactical map) give me" rather then giving him training wheels, it might be better to give him his own array of gizmo's to use that rely on his relative discipline. he'll stay rather poor with a gun, but he's handy with *insert tool here*...rather then a spec. op soldier suddenly needing a Phd to learn to use explosives. Since the science/engineering discipline should not involve killing/blowing up stuff as a major factor, I see their tools being support oriented that becomes more potent as the campaign tech level advances. (for example: once alien encryption has been researched, fielded scientists can decrypt/jam not just human but also alien field communication on the buy extra time after going loud (jam), listen in for acces codes/locations of key personnel or prisoner or bug a network. while engineers can use elerium tech to tamper with elerium based generators/vehicles, rig, reduce efficiency to generate error noise or disable ) it is important to note that the tools here are not shot,launched or thrown at an enemy, and the speed/reliability of the action depends on the competence level of the engineer/Sc and the power of the relevant tool (acting much like aim and damage when relating to guns here). this makes them much more useful on stealth based missions, where killing stuff isn't the primary objective.
  15. I am worried about the direction the update states it is going. -10-15 soldiers by endgame would mean that you will be fighting with much smaller teams (I really doubt 12 man squads will be available), especially when double dipping in key functions and having the cover ops system stapled on top -the focus on anti-infiltrator operations would indicate a significantly reduced focus on battlefield weapons (as in rocket-launchers, mortars and vehicles) fielding and using heavy weapons in a battlefield setting was part of the fun for me, that sets it apart from the Xcom franchise was limited in X1 (as it didn't even have a mortar)..but a important part. -the limit of flying only by night makes no real sense to me (aliens and humans alike are unlikely to rely on visual identification of an aircraft anyway, especially in a post or on cold war era setting) what is the idea behind this? -comfort and relaxation base related statistics as well as having a job-unless-fighting kind of system reminds me of games like rimworld, where I have to worry about mental breakdowns because the room ain't pretty enough, or baby them so they get their naptimes...while that works great for that particular game, I'm not really looking forward to this in a more combat focused turn based strategy. -while I have no real problems with a trooper having to be trained to use their particular weapon system, having weapons tied to skills from other disciplines seems self defeating. -boss level enemies results in me seeing the concept of a hard hitting bullet soak.