Jump to content


  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won


Bobit last won the day on May 6 2020

Bobit had the most liked content!

Community Reputation

8 Neutral

About Bobit

  • Rank
  1. I'm curious what this game does does. Are you just talking about Scientists and Engineers? It is true that 1996 XCOM and some OpenXCOM mods have a lot more reliance on engineers for profit, though you still need soldiers in an engineer-heavy strategy to gather funds to buy engineers and stop the world from burning down before you make money.
  2. Bobit

    Interesting Documentation about real Extraterestials

    In this case I feel insulting him is for his own good. But yes the chances I do this again on this forum are very low.
  3. IRL point defenses exist against ICBMs but not more nimble missiles AFAIK. Anyhow hardcoded base archetypes are mostly a fallback position if you can't get full customization to result in variety. E.g. "well everyone just used their freedom to build the same base 5x over, so we might as well introduce base types instead."
  4. Bobit

    Interesting Documentation about real Extraterestials

    I saw oyur username, guess that makes you a liar
  5. Bobit

    Xenonauts-2 June Update!

    I know, but the increase in fun is worth it.
  6. Bobit

    Xenonauts-2 June Update!

    TLDR: lore, maps, mods, EA. Completely finishing the first months will be cool. I suggest making the 3-month campaign harder than in the final game, because most campaigns try to not kill you in the first 3 months, and a campaign where you can't lose is no fun.
  7. Bobit

    Interesting Documentation about real Extraterestials

    yeah but did ya kill any yet?
  8. 30% is a bit low, but yeah it's always more fun to encourage restraint and loot. The main solution to grind-to-win is always to put a timer on the game through base assaults and losing countries. Players should be expected to participate in every mission they can get a net reward from imo. Including missions they don't plan on totally finishing unless they get really lucky. You can try to prevent players from doing all missions through fatigue, but players can simply get more soldiers, and it can make casualties too decisive. You can limit it through difficult airgame and alien fighters which attack dropships, but you don't want the air war to decide the game (unless the ground war decides the air war, meaning more expensive fighters almost always win, eww). Basically every "indirect lose condition" should be equally viable. Losing by extreme casualties, air war, relations, lack of ground tech, base assault. Just fatigue or just airwar limiting players from doing all missions will cause one lose condition to be too prevalent.
  9. Exactly, that's like 10 different random status effects, pretty complex. If you just throw those on a random roll and they just last a turn, that's going to add very little depth and maybe just luck. Random status effects aren't bad, but they should consist of a few distinct categories which change your strategy in interesting ways, like engine or rudder damage on a plane, or retreating. Complexity usually adds depth. It's just that other kinds of complexity could add more depth. For example instead of working on making this and explaining it to users, they could add variable squadsize/equipment missions or a loot-based research tree that's more of a research web like OpenXCOM mods do. If you add realspace aiming and mechanics that interact with those status effects, great. But not every game should spend its complexity on that. They have better things to do, and so do their players. In a way this is kind of the same argument against the Weapon Level system. But to me that one has a specific gameplay purpose, while this one is more "wouldn't it be cool if..."
  10. There's nothing complex about soccer/football either, except physics, which are immensely complex. Realspace/parts-based damage makes no sense in a game with no realspace accuracy. There's no way to guess how it will work, far more complex than the proposed level system. Doesn't add any depth, only makes things more random until you research them. Only upside is realism, which is not a real upside. Parts based damage makes a ton of sense in Phoenix Point, because it both has realspace damage and parts that will be wounded for the remainder of the battle and each have their own effects. But that's not simple, it needs a lot of mechanics to work well.
  11. Personally I'd prefer standalone Skirmishes to endless campaign. Like you see in OpenXCOM, but with reasonable presets that could actually occur in a campaign. Play whatever missions you want.
  12. Shred was never realistic in the first place. Armor doesn't get weaker when you shoot it twice. It gets bent when you swing a mace at it, or melts when you shoot a plasma bolt at it, but how that actually affects it is pretty complicated.That argument can be made against any other XCOM system just as much as this one. Yes, tier-based shred values with no deviation within tiers are bad. But that's not inherent to the system. The "level" word implies that, it's a terrible word. I think the intention with these sort of abstractions is to make it simple for player who just want to say "oh this gun has more anti-armor capability than the other" and don't care for the numbers, while keeping it strategically complex especially for the players that have to know everything. I don't agree with this design philosophy, because it's incredibly bad for the players in between who want to know the numbers without asking on the forums, but it is a pretty prevalent one. For example in MMOs, MOBAs, Dark Souls, Skyrim all the armour uses a complex formula that the game pretends is simple for the lazy players. ...so you don't like shred? It's a pretty interesting mechanic in X-Division and some OpenXCOM mods. Makes anti-andron strategy more complex, largely because you have to have one unit shoot before another, the same way that shotguns+stun are interesting together. And veteran players are used to it by now, so that part is not added complexity. Again, the purpose of the system is that weapons change roles from penetration to shred throughout the game depending on their tech level. You don't always use a ballistic minigun to shred. You use a plasma rifle to shred tanks or a laser rifle to pierce tanks. Then later in the game you use anti-matter for shred and plasma for pierce. Or if you see a very high-armor enemy, you have to resort to only using piercing weapons and your low-caliber weapons are completely irrelevant unless you brought C4 and position it very well. I hope you get some of what I'm saying. While resistance and armor is there to make certain weapons obviously bad against certain enemimes, shred is there to make certain weapons bad against certain enemies under certain conditions. It can bypass armor but you have to have a strategy of prepping the target, and different targets will require being prepped different ways, you can't cover all the corner cases with 100% effectiveness. I'm not saying this system is the best way to do that, but it does work.
  13. I think you misunderstand. Armor has HP but it only absorbs maybe 50% of damage and the portion of that damage which actually reduces the armor rather than being wasted is like 30%, which is the same system as X1. The level mechanic has a dumb name, but that doesn't mean it's some "horrible MMORPG" thing, nor is it as simple as you think. It's a new system, a way of merging the stats "penetration" and "shred". IIRC with +1 level differential (e.g. lvl 4 weapon and lvl 3 armor) you get most of your penetration, but you need to reach +3 level to get most of your shred. So very high-caliber rounds will shred armor altogether allowing any weapon to deal more damage to the target, while moderate-caliber will pierce which is effective only for that one shot. As opposed to the odd behavior you see in most games (X1 included) where miniguns and shotguns are the best shredders due entirely to high rate of fire and low damage. Or the gamey behavior you see in XCOM2 and Phoenix Point where shred is a fixed value regardless of whether you're shredding wood or titanium. Positional damage is a little odd if it uses realspace rather than rolling randomly regardless of your firing angle, because the game doesn't give you any info about realspace trajectories. But otherwise it's a really good system. Certainly more complex, but it aims to fix problems in the genre, and it has the appearance of being simple which is nice for some players (not me).
  14. Key thing is to make the stun weapons different. Stun gas is really cool because no lethal weapon works similarly (even the chemical grenade in X-division has a more limited role). If they add riot snipers I will riot. XCOMFiles has flashbangs that seriously enhance the stun game. They halve TUs, but they also halve melee dodge. You can also bleed out opponents or scare them into surrendering, both of which encourage a mix of lethal and nonlethal. It's probably not "stealth" missions, because that just doesn't work as a mission unless you go Invisible Inc and add tons of mechanics.
  15. All weapons can damage everything but they have to shredarmor first which takes a very long amount of time. Don't remember exactly how armor works, but the gist is that all damage is reduced by 1 for each point of armor, and every 6 points of damage (blocked by armor or no) shreds 1 point of armor permanently, so machine guns / shotguns will be the only things able to shred armor reasonably. Actually incendiary is one of the best damage types against tanks IIRC. But that mostly means grenades and high explosives are good, not flamethrowers.