Max_Caine

So yeah. My search for more actual game footage from E3 continues. Behold!

There's a game that already does that - sort of. X-com: the Two Sides is a xcom multiplayer where one guy plays as xcom, the other guy as the aliens. Check it out! EDIT: One thing I will say about the E3 coverage – there are a buttload of interviews. Holy crap are there interviews with any and all of the developers who turned up for the expo (some of them look very uncomfortable), but there’s very little actual footage. I suspect this is because the major players (IGN and G4, for example) all want “exclusives”, and Firaxis has given them little slices of the pie. There’s also quite a few youtube bottom-feeders who make videos with titles like “Re: XCOM E3”, and all they are are pathetic attempts to get people to come subscribe to their channel.

Some advice. 1) There are no alien subs. If you shoot an alien ship over the sea, you'll never see it again. 2) A light scout sucks up 2-3 sidewinders before crashing. Magic number 4 will destroy it. 3) An ordinary scout will suck up 4 sidewinders before crashing. Avalanches will destroy it. 4) Fightercraft will always blow up. 5) So will bombers. 5a) And heavy fighters. 6) A corvette will suck up 4 avalanches before crashing. Good luck fighting one otherwise.

Well... Safe-Keeper, if the investment in making a replacement involves: - Tying up my manufacturing facilities while I build a new one - Paying through the nose to build one - Using up my stocks of alienium and alien alloys to build a new one - Waiting however long for a new one to be built - Paying for my new craft to have it transported - Waiting for my new craft to be transported to the base I scrapped the old one at - Swearing as an alien fightercraft shoots down my transporter.... Yeah, I'd think that was unfun. And very annoying that I would have to periodically do this.

C'mon dudes! I can't be the only one who watches youtube obessively! And I certainly couldn't be the first person who found this G4 footage which includes some (but not the crucial bit) of an interception!

Didn't work out?

Then what are you waiting for? An invitation from the president?!

RotGtIE, have you considered using Quartermaster's XenoArmoury mod to alter the weapon stats to see what changes you can effect, and report the changes you like the best back on this thread?

Well Gazz, I would contest that. The more effective at shooting a unit is, the more chance it has of killing the unit it is shooting at, by being able to cause more damage through more shots that land on target. Therefore, if armed the same, a better shot will kill an enemy sooner than a unit that is a worse shot. If the chance of suppression in the case of a worse shot is the same as the chance of suppression in a better shot, then a worse shot benefits from a longer period of suppression than a better shot would. As a thought experiment, a better shot may kill an enemy in the same turn it shoots at it, whereas a worse shot may kill it in the following turn. In that situation, a better shot does not benefit from suppression on that target, but a worse shot would.

So, about those 18 pages of discussion in the previous thread. On page 13, Erutan summarised the discussion up to that point. In Erutan's words: And pages 14-17? The following is a condensed version of the discussion. - Suppression should be based upon suppression per bullet (Gauddlike). - Suppression should be a separate fire mode (Trahsman) - Suppression mode should cause less damage and more suppression, and visa versa (James) - Some aliens should be harder to suppress than others, and visa versa (Gauddlike) - Suppression should build up a "suppression bar". As the bar builds, accuracy and reactions decrease (Gauddlike). - Suppression should reduce or remove reaction fire (Gauddlike) - Suppression should increase the chance for the suppressed unit to be reaction fired on (Gauddlike) - Suppression should reduce accuracy (Gauddlike) - The longer the distance away, the less effect suppression has (Gauddlike) - Suppression "mode" gives the suppressing unit a bonus to-hit when reaction-firing at suppressed moving units (Trashman) - Armour should affect suppression, based upon armour type and weapon type hitting the armour (Gauddlike) - Shots should have an Area of Effect for suppression, based upon hit, near miss and wide miss (Gauddlike) - Suppression should stop a unit from moving (Trashman) - Suppression should add a cost to all actions through a multiplier with a cap (Bidibop).

GoodGuyEddy, I kinda like 265. It has (to me) that light jogging effect that you mention.

Gauddlike.. and what do you have to start with? Veterans? And what troops can you get when you build a new base. Veterans? You say "give all your rookies machineguns" well damn, yes, I did that. I started a new game and gave all my rookies machineguns. Which is everyone. And it didn't work. But, fair enough, let's say they aren't all rookies. So, again, as I wrote last time, if it takes a rookie a turn to get into a position, then a turn to shoot, which I found was the case when playing the scenario, why isn't the alien dead/suppressed by other members of the squad? Rookies with machineguns don't work. But if you can show that they do, then I will be happy to concede the point to you. However, rookies with assault rifles is a different story. This I would say strengthens your point. Being lighter, they are capable of moving and shooting. And they have a burst fire, which would hopefully do more suppression and less damage. Therefore, rookies with assault rifles can get into position far more easily than rookies with machineguns could, and dakka away in the scenario you paint. And having just started a new game and done that exact thing (to see if that works), it does. I can set up rookies with assault rifles to burst fire at extreme range in the manner you describe in your scenario, and yes, bullets do go everywhere. Huzzah! I would argue that it does make a difference how good a shot the unit is if tying suppression to bullet travel path. Namely, the ability for the player (or computer) to maximise the no. of enemy units affected by the bullet travel path. As you have written, to maximise the no. of targets in the bullet travel path the shooter should aim for the center. So if the unit is a poor shot, and the bullet travels outside of the center mass, the bullet travel path will effect one side of the mass less than the other. Bullet travel path is quite zen - it looks for equilibrium in all things. Unless the AOE of bullet travel path is massive, of course. -------------- I think the point of the previous pages comes down to this. With the system Chris proposes, the worse the shot, the more effective suppression is. The better the shot, the less effective suppression is. Is that an acceptable game mechanic?

Gazz, the only issue that I see with tying suppression to bullet travel path rather than intended person or point-of-impact are those unusual scenarios where a projectile could theoretically traverse past several targets and suppress the lot. In fact, if it were possible to hit the floor or a wall rather than a target alien with a projectile weapon, wouldn’t it be better for a veteran with good accuracy, faced with a group, to fire at the floor in-between targets to maximise the number of aliens suppressed within the bullet travel path? Or if firing at non-alien targets is not permitted, then wouldn’t it be better for the same veteran to fire at the furthest alien in a group to maximise bullet travel path suppression?

One thing I would ask is if a squadmate gets hit by friendly fire, the “intended target” should switch to the squadmate who had been shot.

First of all Gauddlike, let me quote you, page three of this thread: So.... if you weren’t suggesting it, what’s this? Scotch mist? Secondly, let’s consider your current theory. It doesn’t work. By that statement you presume that a rookie with a machinegun can fire in the same turn it moves into visible range. They can’t, or at least, I could not find a rookie that could. A rookie that edges into visible range has to wait until next turn to fire that machinegun. So, unless you are not letting any of the rest of the squad shoot at that alien (and why not?), that alien will either be dead or suppressed by another unit by the time the rookie gets his turn Furthermore, a rookie armed with a machinegun will shoot his buddies if they are even vaguely in the way. Rookies and machineguns need very clear, very open lines of fire at anything other than short-to-point blank or they wound/kill their own. This I found out when playing the scenario you offered.

I took the opportunity to try out Gauddlike’s nightmare scenario – a Chinook full of rookies armed with machineguns. It didn’t work out. The problem with Gauddlike’s scenario is that the machinegun is pretty much a move-or-fire weapon. Between the AP hit from the weight of the weapon, and the ungodly number of APs required to fire the damn thing, I never was able to fire more than 2 machineguns at a particular alien at any one time. The farm tileset was slightly more forgiving as far as line-of-sight was concerned (I could fire 3 machineguns a few times), but the industrial tileset made it very difficult to bring weight-of-guns to bear.

thothkins - I suspect they have chiefly balanced it by making it line-of-sight. That was the principle exploit with psionics/molecular control - you didn't need to see the enemy.

This quote from Chris in the previous suppression thread makes for good reading re. burst fire: Should Chris implement burst fire in that manner, "bullets flying everywhere" becomes a moot point as far as burst fire is concerned. You would know, roughly, where bullets would be going in a specific area. Perhaps the solution to suppression being "auto win" as Gauddlike presents it is to implement burst fire as an area effect, and calculate suppression for single shots from point-of-impact.

So Gauddlike, if I understand you correctly, you are concerned that a shooting action which misses, that doesn't hit anywhere near the intended target ("anywhere near" being a rather subjective value) still suppresses the intended target regardless. You want the "point of suppression" to be from "point of weapon impact", not "intended target". You feel the best way to determine "point of impact" from a coding perspective is to give suppression values to ammunition rather than the weapon itself. This is because... why? Why, from a coding perspective is giving the suppression value to the ammunition to determine "point of impact" superior to giving it to the weapon?

Thinking early game, aliens are more likely to be suppressed then they are killed. Which helps rookies. Late game, they are more likely to be killed than suppressed. Which helps vets.

;_; . such things dreams are made of......

This sounds exploitable. I could take a pistol and have a rookie squeeze shot after shot off to "lock" a unit in place. And if the rook dies? Eh. Too bad.

The 50% reduction of APs. Is this a cumulative modifier? I.e. if I suppress the same unit again, is that 50% of 50%, or 50% the original AP score? And is "normal value" the maximum no. of APs the unit has, or the AP value of the unit when it is reduced to 0 supression?

Snozy, have you read the May development update? I think you should.

I would like to revise some of my statements after having re-read what existing lore we have. Specifically, the period of time when Xenonauts reveal themselves. Quite specifically the words "panic spreads globally" is written. I would argue, based upon the means of media communication at the time, that "panic" would be restricted to government and government agencies,for the reasons already given. A dearth of peer-to-peer media, the ability for state-control to mean something with reference to the mass media. And of course, the cold war. Which had been going on for a little while..