Conductiv
-
Posts
108 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
6
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Conductiv
-
-
On 12/15/2019 at 3:55 PM, Sheepy said:
I think Phoenix Point's alien variations are much better than Firaxis XCOM and Xenonauts, if we consider only the base game. Worms and tanks, sentinels and big bad boss. The counters for goo Chiron, explode Chiron, and worm Chirons are pretty different. If that is not enough, you are practically required to fight human factions with very different team compositions. On the variation front I consider it on par with Apoc and UFO, if not better.
Abilities are less varied/interesting/balanced as XCOM 2, which is sad. Like you said, either you abuse your abilities and cheeze your way through the missions, or be faced with impossible odds. Which something dent the variations - whatever it is, either stealth snipe or dash shotgun. Ironman is very difficult now with cascading kills common on both sides, and solders too hard to replace.
Still, there is lots of content. There is a lack of information, lack of balance, lack of upgrade path, lack of research and event visibilities, lack of diplomacy options, lack of Phoenix Point identify... but they are not lack of content. We got a dynamic globe with faction relationships, raids, events, procedurally generated maps, vehicles and doggies, armour parts with modules and mutations, and plenty of weapons (with equal amount of damage types). Many weapons are suboptimal given the state of the game, yeah, but that is more a balance issue than a content issue.
No, it is definitely not a game for the faint of heart in its current state. But for a base game it is very rich. I certainly didn't expect to see Mutogs and multiple endings. Looking forward to balance patches and DLCs.
I have to disagree on the variation of units, there are only 5 base pandoran units and while they might switch an arm or leg for something that mounts a different weapon or modifies its speed stat there isn't all that much variation. the enemy does not adapt to you..it only stacks armor, damage and HP based on your total mission count. there would be different counters for the units if the capstone skills of every tree weren't so insanely broken.
I fully agree with the complaints though, its phoenixpedia is far from complete and has incorrect information in it, balance is completely shot, many of the upgrades you get are actually weaker then the base weapons you have as they add a status that the game simply moves too fast for, a fair chunk of the research options you get lie to you about what you get, a huge amount of the events are just get X resources with a sad story and the diplomacy..other then the milestone missions are nonsensical. this on top of a boatload of bugs.
the free aim system adds some tactical capability..but the whole cover system is almost moot..as only 2/5 units of the whole pandoran roster are actually affected by cover and 1 of those needs a specific variant to be affected atoll. cover is effective when fighting humans..but human enemies are insanely weak overall
abilities are varied enough, they actually promote a fair share of stats but are again...poorly balanced...you have a lot of stuff to play with..but 70% of it is pointless as its completely outclassed by other options. again balance..the status weaponry has no identity atoll, no sane person is going to wait 5 turns to strip armor if the general goal is to instantly kill almost everything in sight, no person is going to wait multiple turns to cause panic etc etc...vehicles like the mutog..take 3 soldier slots but deal significantly less damage then even 1 soldier, the opportunity cost is ridiculous.
huge potential in the game, and I do not regret buying it...but the balance, at the moment of this post is terrible (only a few unbalanced enemies, but you basically trip over OP combinations that completely break the game in the players favor..first playthrough I managed an invisible soldier that could dash around shotgunning half the map to death by refunding the AP after the shot and dealing double damage on every shot... big enemies posed no danger atoll as I had 1 dude simply empty a mag in it...doesn't really matter what mag..heavy weapon, sniper... pistol it basically killed anything with a click of the button and refunded the WP I used to start the ability)..so bad that it saps the will to play it anymore, I have to deliberately gimp myself as to not break the balance.
-
the tactical layer is the meat of the game for me, I want options to play with that don't feel completely obsolete once I go up a tech tier and I want solid balance between weapon types, skills and tiers to avoid being forced to go for 1-trick pony tactics. keep it tactical rather then a damage race...
next up stability, minimize bugs and crashes...might seem obvious but nothing kills my enjoyment of a game faster then having to go online to find a way past a section that always locks up, crashes or otherwise fails to proceed.
music and sound is really the gravy...good sound can help out with the immersion during the tactical battles.
a solid xenopedia to explain game concepts..if I apply a status I want to be able to read what it actually does rather then having to guess. this was somewhat solid in X1, as it had mistakes and wrong info in it..but at least it was there..so I'd love a better redo of that
strategical layer is really a sideshow for me, I hardly care for the air combat atoll and I don't play this to end up with something similar to a civ game where I can bullshit my way to victory. for me at least its the "farm resources to get all the tactical goodies I want to use" and i have no problems managing income, personnel, resource and production timers...but I'm not doing it to charge entree fees and set up sales margins like a tycoon game.
-
1
-
-
On 11/10/2019 at 8:17 PM, Ogilvy the Astronomer said:
I'd be keen to hear Chris' thoughts on the ideas I suggested earlier in this thread, if at all possible
might I suggest linking to them again if you ask people to respond to them, its faster and easier then digging through the thread to find someones suggestions.
-
1
-
-
while I am pretty sure a frag would blow out a wooden wall if it happened to land right next to it, because if the charge wouldn't the shrapnel would turn a set of boards into swiss cheese. rugger is correct in his statement that they are not intended for demolition.
demolition equipment we would be looking at incendiaries from the lowly molotov to thermite charges, or high explosives (launched like rockets with HE or tandem warheads (also HE, just a series of charges as to drill the main explosive in the structure to be blown up, or past spacers) or set like the C4) or the shaped charge (launched...or set, less likely to spread the structure all over, better for punching holes or making entry pionts)
-
the way Charon put it, I would be indifferent to the system as its basically a slot machine for possible combat buffs or gimping a soldier if they almost get killed. its not likely to buff soldiers to extreme levels and it is likely to individualize soldiers if they get shot.
The way coffee potato put it makes it look like a achievement hunt for stat boosts, this obviously has balance impact and I would generally oppose an implementation of that kind.
-
37 minutes ago, Ruggerman said:
I am in agreement with Emily_F on this subject, as you are very much limited, in personal soldier stat advancement, if the better you get the slower your reflex are.
more TU's doesn't mean the soldier gets more time, it means the soldier gets more done in the same time. (every TU piont is more effective time expenditure)
for example: a "turn" would be 3 seconds of time where this realtime. (this is a made up number to illustrate the point)
-you have a 45 TU rookie, every 15 TU points would be a second.
-you have a 90 TU veteran, now every 30 TU is a second.
flat costs grow along this line meaning that soldiers get notably faster. 90TU soldier can move faster because it can fit more 3-TU costs in its TU bar. flat costs still apply to movement as far as I have seen
percentile costs remain exactly the same time wise 34% of that TU bar would mean the action takes a second, regardless if you have 45 or 90TU's. effectively your weapons rate of fire doesn't increase...it does not make a soldier slower.
the stat to improve the soldiers lethality is accuracy, allowing the soldier to use the higher rate of fire burst modes more reliably, or land more shots with the semi-automatic options.
-
On 9/10/2019 at 12:06 PM, TrashMan said:
I'm not sure I agree with that sentiment Chris.
While there is some luck/change factor, that's generally how armor works. You KNOW what it can usually take. You know modern kevlar will stop handgun rounds (unless you're using a hand cannon). If the armor is hit of course. If you hit in the face, that's a different matter. That is also why I prefer a more proper was of hit detection and shooting. ACTUAL bullet trajectories, actual collision detection, actual cones of fire, actual obstacles. Proper consequences (got hit in the arm? well, the soldier survived, but the armor is thinner there. Arm is unusuable, weapon dropped).
But I digress.. What's the point of armor otherwise if the alien with a laser gun can hit in my 1 kill almost as easily as he could if I was naked? All the time and resources spent to make that armor and all that extra weight I'm lugging around. It has to be worth it. 5% more chance to survive a hit definitely isn't.
I mostly agree with TrashMan here, I'll elaborate below.
die-roll-death, you get shot ...roll a D20...came up 1...ahh bad luck your dude in the best armor in the game just got its head blown off by the dude with a spudgun. you attack..he rolls a 1..he gets his head blown off. now his 6 buddies run around the corner..take shots...roll for defense
player characters...or player controlled soldiers are far more likely to get attacked a lot more over their career and they are not easily replaced, the enemy alien..for all intends and purposes is a disposable pawn capable of depleting his entire arsenal in a single game and suicide himself just to get hits in on player controlled units. this enemy alien will simply be refreshed if he survives or perishes, so 1-shotting him with a juicy crit to the face feels good but is ultimately barely consequential...him getting that hit on you with 1-shot potential regardless of what armor you are wearing feels a lot worse.
so yes I would very much go for a system that allows for a reliable way of counteracting enemy fire. note that, even if you know the soldiers can take 1 hit reliably...as soon as the armor is cracked the stress is on every time this soldier ends up in a potentially dangerous situation. compare this to getting pushed into a hard fight with half your health (or healing items if the game has them) already depleted. yes good players don't get hit often, part of being a good player means not getting your men shot at in the first place and the armor is a safeguard...this will not change if a single shot can be stopped...it will stop once you can reliably stop full on bursts or plant your dude in heavy armor in the middle of the open face-checking for machinegun-rounds.
-
1
-
-
very few devs have regular updates and actually talk realistically about what they are working on, so I really do appreciate every update given.
I am wondering if the test version the beta testers are playing now is actually feature complete...I havn't heard a word about the MARS weapons platform from the testers in any feedback thread.
-
1
-
-
2 hours ago, Ruggerman said:
There is a great deal of difference between a well drilled professional soldier, who re-acts instinctively, and a novice who has to think through all their actions.
So I am not in favour of a % base TU system, because that difference would be so small, as to be neg-suable.
Experience Counts!!
Go and see "Danger Close" there is a fire fight!
fair enough, but I look at it this way
how big is the difference between 2 well drilled soldiers, 1 of them just had 5 more deployments...the recruit pool isn't drawing first time shooters from a nearby range, but is hiring trained often veteran soldiers. from a realistic perspective the difference between a complete newb and an expert is huge, but the difference between experts, even years of experience apart is relatively small.
and from a gameplay perspective: with the stat spread going from 40-70 as a starting stat, and eventually going all the way up past 100 pionts. the difference in what a soldier can do with 70 acc is significantly less then what a veteran soldier with 150 acc can do (using the TU stat increases listed in other threads, and supplanting them in the accuracy stat) the veteran being able to sacrifice the accuracy bonus from semi automatic fire and fully focus on burst fire with almost no drop in accuracy. doubling his hit rate in semi, or almost tripling its effectiveness in burst (assuming 3 round burst) now I would call a effectiveness increase nearing 200% far from neglectable.
even if you would get an optimal recruit in the desired stat (acc, 70) versus a capped veteran (assuming cap 100 rather then the 150 stats that are apparently achievable) you would still have a 40+% increase in overall firepower, again I would not call this advantage insignificant
extra shots also work multiplicatively with this effectiveness increase, being able to squeeze double the shots at significantly higher accuracy will make the soldier twice as effective as it was just factoring in accuracy boosts.
with flat costs and the ability for troopers to get a increase in the amount of shots they can fire on top of boosting their overall accuracy...what would happen if a midgame mission would go sideways and you lose 6 out of 8 of your best troops, and you now have to train greenhorns...if these rookies are only 15-50% as effective as your original squad, your next mission will basically have you go in at 63% of your previous power in the best case scenario (8/(6X0.5+2)), I'm going to assume that it would be relatively hard for a player to recover from something like that. (apart from the god power that the "load game" button provides)
in effect this can go 2 ways, (ignoring adaptive difficulty) either the game is balanced around you having god-like troops past a certain point and when you do take a loss you are well behind the curve. or the game is set up in a way where losses are expected and your super-soldiers simply cake walk their way through.
so in conclusion: it would both generate too big a performance gap from a realistic perspective, and it would cause a situation where losing troops should be rare from a gameplay perspective.
-
6 hours ago, dstar said:
I have a problem with %-based TU costs, based on the real-world -- look at what some pistol shooters can manage; they can pull off five or more shots in the time it would take an average shooter to pull off one.
It might work if there was a way to reduce the % cost of a specific weapon type (and possibly shot type, e.g. aimed, snap, burst, etc) as a soldier leveled up, allowing a soldier to pull off multiple times as many shots as they'd manage if they didn't have that ability. Although thinking about it, these are people who can shoot multiple silver dollars out of the air in a second or two....
Maybe in addition to being able to reduce the % cost of firing a weapon, the amount that any given soldier can increase a stat is randomized -- and hidden.
Especially if, after a certain amount (possibly also hidden) of increase, some sort of action (time in the gym, etc) which only has a percentage chance of increase is the only reasonable way to increase the stat -- say, time in combat only has a fraction of the chance that dedicated action has. Do you stick your soldier in the gym for a non-trivial amount of time, knowing it might not actually help, or do you give up on any real chance of their speed/strength/whatever increasing, and just hope you get lucky and they don't get shot?
I actually prefer the % based system, mainly because it reduces the gap between novice and veteran soldiers in a significant way. at least giving me the illusion that the soldiers had basic training before they where assigned to this command.
more firepower is always desired so asking about a leveling system that would allow you to squeeze more shots off in a turn of a veteran trooper isn't exactly unexpected. but do keep in mind that firepower is already increasing as the soldier gets more experience and because of that it will be harder and harder to replace the trooper if he gets wounded or killed. and being forced to keep a powerful squad alive all game OR having a team of supersoldiers by midgame means that it will move to the age old "A-team-saved-the-world" trope.
in general firepower consists out of rate of fire, range, accuracy and power...with both boosting the accuracy through the "aim or accuracy" stat that the soldiers level in as they complete missions and getting more shots through the "% discount or extra TU" stat, you will drastically increase the gap between troops at different skill levels, relative to only having one of these factors being significantly affected by leveling.
-
8 hours ago, Coffee Potato said:
I see no complaints about a building sized mech covered in guns and barricades
I can solve that
in war size is usually a bad thing, it makes things expensive (to build, operate and maintain), hard to hide and easy to hit. especially land based vehicles as bridges, railways etc can only handle so much weight before they are either damaged or outright broken. and the terrain doesn't allow for a monotonous way of movement (like ships, submarines and aircraft benefit of...but aircraft have to deal with the tyranny of gravity)
tanks, self propelled guns and other armored vehicles are usually made as small as possible while still big enough to carry their ordinance or the personnel they are supposed to protect. big or many guns are still beneficial but its a balance, same with the level of armor protection versus the mobility, or amount of weapons relative to the size and weight of the vehicle. now bipedal robots with immensy good balance (so it doesn't get knocked over when it does catch a hit) might have some benefits when it comes to handling some terrain biomes, but generally...vehicles can pack the same level of heat in a more compact package.
-
the first threaded shield vehicle would be terrible for war...it makes for a bigger target you can't hide and it would be defeated by any terrain with obstacles that don't have a lot of space between it (doors, a couple of trees) it doesn't have the power or mass to overpower these obstacles...nor does it have protection against anything but small arms fire (and light ones at that)
the shieldarm soldier would have significant vision problems, and issues taking cover...on top of that that extra arm is begging to hook onto something and getting the trooper stuck.
OK for urban settings when facing billy with his dads shotgun...as the options do provide good protection if the trooper only has to worry about being assailed from 1 direction by low power firearms across flat terrain. granted...it seems the lizards from space like their variant of shotguns...
-
I oppose removing semi-automatic fire from rifles, the assault rifle concept was conceived as a medium between high power long range rifles who would either be too slow in close quarters, too big or to cumbersome to use in any automatic capacity, and submachineguns/machinepistols who could dominate close range but who's rounds often didn't have the power or accuracy to take on long range enemies.
the design focused on 3 main things, enough ballistic accuracy to place single shots at long range, controllable automatic capacity at short range and an ammunition type that could be carried in capacity and would be useful at both range types. this moved AR's to having at least a single shot and an automatic mode.
the single shot is intended to mimic marksmen rifles, hence it should be accurate...significantly more accurate then a burst. it is supposed to be the shot you use when the target is far off, you have a good firing position and you have time to aim. burst is actually a medium to prevent you from ending up with an empty mag in close range, even relatively slow firing AR's tend to have rates of fire around 600RPM (most fire significantly faster), meaning it will take 5 or less seconds to empty a magazine (on average 30 rounds) if spraying, and having to reload with enemies within spitting range is less then optimal.
problem in this game with rifles so far seems to be that people love spraying guns and the "balance suggestions" I keep hearing seem to keep ramping up the burst accuracy...just making the rifles semi-automatic modes pointless.
Pistols are mainly conceived out of convenience, a light self defense weapon with relatively short range. they never took a spot as the main weapon of war, but always a utility backup position like the dagger. pistols are light weight and can be manipulated in 1 hand. unlike machinepistols, they also tend to have a decent staying power in a fight as they tend not to be sprayed (read you don't have to reload instantly). they make good weapons for enforcement positions because it is often in close range and the idea is that you don't get into a shootout to begin with. as soon as they do expect actual resistance with firearms, enforcement usually opts for machinepistols, shotguns or AR subtypes.
in the game...other then having a hand free and low impact on ones carry capacity, they should not give major advantages. (note that MP's are usually best operated in 2 hands, because like full auto AR's they run out of ammo fast and to my knowledge no MP has been desighned in such a way you can reload the thing with only 1 hand (hollywood magic aside))
this game has controlled ammo consumption in the automatic modes provided, and turn based greatly mitigates to oh shit effect that a weapon "click" effect gives when you realize your mag is now empty.
-
1
-
-
are psionics still working as a cross map "weather" like phenomenon? where your troops are struck at random with morale saves at a interval of per X turns until they finally kill the cause hiding somewhere deep into the base or spaceship? wouldn't this invariably lead to rather binairy counterplay?
either you have good bravery and you can ignore it, or you have bad bravery and you have to basically hog every support item AND crawl your way through the map saving TU for its bonus. that is if the RNG element isn't so large that any sort of preparation would be meaningless to begin with.
-
if we are talking about a single battery with a constant recharge, the way I would start thinking about the weapon system would be uptime/charge time
uptime is turns needed to drain the mag with the selected fire mode being used every turn.
charge time is the amount of turns being used to recharge the mag.
a big factor here is if the magazine recharges on the turn the weapon is firing, if this is the case any mode that has a uptime longer or equal then the chargetime can be used indefinitely, it also complicates the uptime formula's as you need to incorporate the amount of recharged shots (and turns firing those).
note that you can have a large uptime can be combined with a a huge charge time (basically a large mag with a very slow recharge, after spamming burst for many turns the battery is now nearly dry and neither firemodes will be very useful as the amount of charges replenished per turn would be like 1/4th a shot. "pacing" is more important, as the weapon doesn't maraton well, but is great for short engagements) waiting for recharges is a tedium here, but you have a meaningful choice as to use the burst or single shot option. (even though turn for turn wise, burst would still be optimal at 80% and 130% accuracy factors) as scraping the bottom of the energy capacity actually means something
you can also go for a fast charge time and low uptime, this generally favors the low drain shots as just using 1-2 of the high drain options mean that you can't use them anymore for the rest of the engagement, but the weapon promotes short "rests" between fights where the weapon recharges. (this seems to be the current desighn as I read solver and caine's comments) this makes the weapon well suited for long missions with many small fights. in this system however, draining the battery isn't that meaningful...as you can stall for a few turns to recharge and go back in the fight at full capacity.
that is just how I see it.
-
15 hours ago, Max_Caine said:
I'm a little reluctant to comment on laser balance, seeing as like all the other tech beyond ballistic they're up in the air at the moment but there are a few things I can say. In the current iteration of lasers my first experience of laser was "they're so light!". In comparison to ballistic you can sudenly carry a lot more gear as you neither need nor can use spare energy cells and it's surprising how many weight units ammo takes up, especially the LMG. My personal thoughts on how to balance them were inspired by a comment of Chris's in the 6.2 balance thread, where autofire in Xco 1994 was considered the default. By making single shots expensive, but bursts cheap and making both reasonably accurate I lean towards using cheap autofire and as a result, a quick draining of the energy cell. With the laser rifle I actually took out snap and normal, leaving only aimed and burst reducing the cost of burst from 30 to 20 and boosting the accuracy from 45 up to 80 so in effect burst becomes the new normal. Also, I dropped the damage. If I understand correctly, the ballistic weapons have a base damage of 30 (from weapon.json). The general damage increase of 45-55 from lasers is a step up but if you want to make Sebellians resiliant to energy weapons then their resilience has either got to go up or the damage of lasers has to go down as the extra damage from laser (another 15-25) is enough to counter the resilience of Sebellians. I reduced the damage in general down by 5 to heighten the difference betwen Psyons and Sebellians more clearly.
In Short: (laser rifle): Remove (Snap) and (Normal), (Burst): Accuracy: 80, TU: 20. Damage: 40 (rifle/LMG) Damage: 32 (shotgun) Damage: 50 (Sniper rifle).
from an eye of balance, wouldn't that make single shots completely pointless on any AR style weapon provided you have any spare ammo?
0.8*acc*40*3/20 would yield a significantly higher amount of damage per TU regardless of range compared to 1.2*acc*40/24.
even when factoring in reloads (0.8*acc*40*3/(20+9) vs (1.2*acc*40/(20+3)..assuming a 12 shot magazine, 3 shot burst and a 36 TU point cost reload, (36/12 for aimed, and 36/4 for burst)
just from this rough math, I would say it isn't really that surprising one would favor burst with these stats, it seems to be about 30% better with reloads factored in and even more so on close range once the accuracy from the single shot gets cap-blocked. I would see no reason to ever use the single shot.
as a sidenote, this can be offset if carrying large volumes of ammo would actually be a problem..however, X1 didn't actually have that problem weapons apart from maybe the rocket launcher (as it was 3 KG of mass for 1 shot) and missions weren't really marathon sessions that required deep ammo reserves (with most units being able to complete a fight having no more then 2 spare mags for the primary) if lasers are going the single self charge battery route in X2, this depends on the charge rate of said battery
-
2 hours ago, Chris said:
Your thoughts on the specific numbers for all of the weapons are useful, thanks. To talk about the Rifle specifically - yeah, it's a bit difficult to weigh up burst fire vs. single shots without one being superior. The X1 solution was to rely on the short range bonus making autofire superior at close range, and make the burst do more suppression per TU, but have the single shot modes do more damage per TU outside short range.
In X-Com the rifle was set up so that autofire was the best way to use the Rifle in terms of damage output, but it had a medium TU cost to fire. Snap shots were less TU efficient but were cheaper than autofire, so could be used if you only had a few TU remaining. Aimed shots were more expensive than autofire and snap shots on a per-TU vs. Accuracy basis, and rarely used unless you wanted a particularly precise shot for some reason (shooting past your own soldiers, I guess).
I'm not sure if the X-Com method is superior but it's a different way of envisioning things.
I prefer the former on the AR, the weapon is intended as a mix between a rifle and a SMG, so its auto function is mainly intended to work well in close quarters. if it would work as well at long range compared to its singly shot counterpart it would render the single shot mode pointless.
personally I'd also greatly prefer the %TU cost approach, this allows rookies and veteran soldiers to have a roughly equal punch from their weapons if they stay stationary..with the major difference being the accuracy of the shots. while the veteran will still be able to maneuver faster in the field (flat TU cost on movement) creating a visible improvement on soldier flexibility. flat TU costs have the benefit of being easy to understand..however I think many players would simply rush to TU breakpoints where they would be able to squeeze off extra shots making newbie soldiers an even greater hurdle then they already are.
-
yeah it would be pretty bad if you actually had to hit the target to suppress it, as suppression should be used to stop a fortified enemy position from firing at soldiers trying to flank it.
but I do have to note that even in X1 the MG wasn't all that effective at applying the status on enemies if there wasn't already a relatively high chance of outright killing the enemy, early game teams had to rely on the flashbang for reliable suppression. MGs became reliable to suppress in the mid-game just before they became the murder weapon of choice
-
1
-
-
4 hours ago, Coffee Potato said:
The way it works right now is a flat score for everything.
Grenades-15 (ultra spammable)
Grenade launcher/special- 28
Burst- 30, for all weapons, but HMGs fire 5 now. (XDiv system was 6 shots at 40%, so 2 extra shots, but can fire in 2 directions)
Aimed- 35 iirc
Single shot small- 10
Single shot other 12-15
Melee- 10
Rifles and HMGs are fairly unreliable compared to before, though rifles fare better with aimed shots. I've seen an HMG miss 4 times in a row at point blank, so guaranteed damage isn't quite in yet, I assume.
Shotguns and Snipers are really reliable, SMGs are a second slot AR, and pistols are pistols. Grenades are situational, but weirdly generous. Also knives can do 60+ damage, so pretty reliable.
I'm just going to assume this is going to get balanced out better, and I really hope it will go to %TU for such actions. about point blank misses does this game lack the close range shot bonus that X1 had?
I am a bit biased towards AR's as they are jack of all trades master of none weapons, they should be beaten by snipers at long range and shotguns at close range, and have less supressive capability then a MG but function with good reliability on all distances without needing to carry the weight of a second (primairy) weapon like a SMG or (marksmen)rifle. they did so rather well in X1 up to the moment your squad turned into rambo-incarnations.
I'm surprised grenades are so cheap...throwing a grenade in combat is a rather time consuming action compared to placing a shot, and my biggest gripe with X1 frags was their terrible blast radius. the other grenades (gas, smoke and flash) where fine in my book...both in cost to use and general effect. now with launchers I can understand they are cheaper to employ compared to throwing a grenade in X1...but still firing a grenade being cheaper then actually aiming a standard rifle is a tad odd to me from a damage potential perspective
melee wise, well running around with a stun baton and a ballistic shield had its charms, but it was a high risk strategy as most enemies reserved enough TU to react, and one was unlikely to survive if the enemy was given a turn. I take it the same problems occur if you run around with a knife trying to add supplementary breathing holes to space lizards
-
If what Max_Caine is saying is true (I don't play the closed beta) this game definitely needs to maintain the % TU based costs for shots/throws. (I'm also slightly worried about his claim in another thread regarding AR's being relatively useless, personally I felt X1 AR's where quite good, just overshadowed by the SAW when TU's, strength and accuracy went through the roof.) %TU costs have the benefit of not making the soldiers more powerful by boosting TU, just more mobile (effectively turning TU into a speed like stat).
-
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.
Xenonauts-2 January Update
in Monthly Development Updates
Posted
I love these updates, good to see the MARS made it in..even though it currently has some odd behaviors
and keep tabs on the balance, while your competitor phoenix point has a larger team their game had some..significant..balance problems and honestly still does (in the players favor and that might be the best area the balance can swing to, but still..on release it was an art as to not blunder into an power combo that trivialized the game). it seems to plague the (high profile) turn based tactical genre the most to end up between a "million turn drag" and the "one-turn-enemy-is-all-dead and from this point on it's a cakewalk".