Jump to content

Kamehamehayes

Members
  • Posts

    118
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    3

Kamehamehayes last won the day on December 10 2021

Kamehamehayes had the most liked content!

Reputation

8 Neutral

Converted

  • Location
    Yes
  • Interests
    Dragon ball (obvs), Tactical and Strategy games, and sitting around in front of my computer.
  • Occupation
    Sitting in front of a computer.

Recent Profile Visitors

612 profile views
  1. There was (and probably still is) an open beta planned to let more people into the beta. All you have to do is go to the steam page and click "request playtest access" or something along those lines. You should have to scroll a little bit to reach it.
  2. It has been quite awhile since I've seen a two part final mission in an xcom game. I've always prefered having two maps for an endgame mission rarher than one big map. It just felt better pacingwise two play to consecuative missions than to play one really long one (occationally, this leads to the map becoming a slog imo). But Firaxis, Snapshot, nor you guys chose to use that kind of design for the final mission. Is it easier to just design one big map or is there somesort of a major benefit to having one big map (or deficit to designing two smaller maps) that makes most studios gravitate to one big map for a climactic final mission (I have very little designing experience as you can probably tell)? Hoepfully the ui and environment polishing work goes well. The other environments already look great and i hope the xenonauts base can see the same level of quality.
  3. I didn't think of that either initially. It sounds pretty bad for a player to get blindsided by a base attack that they cannot defend against. Although, there are some measures already in game to alleviate this. You can get Sentries as soon as you do the MARS research. They are cheap units that require no investment to train, receive the same upgrades as a MARS so they will never become irrelevant, and they can be rebuilt in the workshop for a cheaper price if destroyed, but they can only be used for base defense missions. You can also stock a base full of these because the weight concerns cited in the xenopedia for carrying vehicles in the dropship are irrelevant and they don't take up living quarter space. I think this is good for having a good way of defending a base, but I think the game doesn't do a fantastic job of conveying this utility to the player. From the research text for the sentries that I've seen, the text is very small (only a third of the page) and it does not make base defenses seem like a crucial part of the gameplay loop, so it makes these guys seem pretty irrelevant in the grand scheme of things when they are pretty important for defending bare-bones bases. And of course there is the obvious issue of what if the player decides not to build them and gets punished for it.
  4. I agree with this a lot. One of my favorite things about Xen 1 and the Original Xcom was the fear of the unknown. When encountering a new alien race for the first time, the player has no clue what they are or what they're capable of. The player would act a lot more cautious and it led to a better gameplay experience. When hp values are easily seen by the player, most of this fear goes away almost immediately. The player knows around how tough the alien is already based on the hp and armor values. Allowing the player to see the hp and armor values of aliens after completing an autopsy or an interrogation also sounds great to me. It makes sense thematically and this might get players to actually start researching autopsies and interrogations instead of ignoring them. I'm not a fan on how this base attack was implemented either. I definitely want for more base attacks, terror mission, and alien base missions to happen more often, but can't think of a good solution. The current implementation feels wrong. Maybe the old Xcom route of sending really massive ufos that the player has no hope of shooting down yet might be a better way of guaranteeing that these missions happen, but that will probably feel just as unfair as it is now. Perhaps letting the player know about base attacks and the like ahead of time so the player can prepare for the attack might be an okay solution, but that undermines the fear of the unknown I was talking about earlier. I got nothing.
  5. Perhaps you might not have to reduce the reload cost of weapons in order to switch ammo. From what I see, the cost of reloading a weapon is a set cost regardless of a soldiers max tu. Instead, you might be able to change it to use a percentage of a soldier's max tu instead (say 15-20% of their max tu maybe). This would allow for a player to switch the ammo on any unit and fire their weapon in the same turn regardless of what kind of weapon a soldier is currently using or how pathetic their max tu is. Although the other question is when would the player be able to acquire said alloy ammo. It would be a pretty interesting design choice to give the player the option to research alloy ammunition right after the player researches alien mag weapons and alien alloys. That way the player can make an interesting decision to either research laser weapons or to research alloy ammunition and keep the ballistic/accelerated weapons competitive with laser weapons if the player desires.
  6. I don't know if I agree with Gauss Weapons having a buff to out compete laser weapons in damage. Gauss weapons have significantly more ammo than their laser counterparts. This makes Gauss weapons the ideal choice for longer missions like Base assaults and terror missions, while laser weapons are most effective when it comes to short and sweet missions. It is supposed to act like a sidegrade to laser weapons, not outright replace them in this regard. I think the main issue with gauss weapons is their availability instead of their damage output. Laser weapons can be researched and built in the first month of the campaign while gauss weapons require research that is not available for a couple of months. With such a large amount of time between getting laser weapons and getting gauss weapons, many players would probably expect more of an upgrade to laser weapons than a sidegrade, probably making it more worth it to wait a little longer for plasma weapons than to get gauss weapons in the eyes of many players.
  7. Most of the downloads are broken due to the recent forum hack. You might try coming back in a couple of weeks to see if the download works, but there is always a chance that the download is lost forever. Alternatively, maybe someone has a copy of the file hand on their desktop somewhere? Maybe you can try joining the Xenonauts discord and asking if someone has has a copy.
  8. In Xen 1, I always liked how it was a safer, but more unreliable alternative to stun batons and electroshock grenades. Stun batons ad electroshock grenades were always more effective and efficient at capturing aliens, but gas grenades allowed for a safe alternative for the player if they did not want to get up close with the aliens. If the stun grenades were to be added back in, then you should really emphasize the unreliable aspect the them. Perhaps have the damage they deal be extremely sporadic, ranging from minor chip damage to more meaningful damage. Some enemies can also be completely immune to its effects. Gas mask wearing cleaners, for example, could be immune to the gas's effects; this might make capture cleaner vip missions a little more interesting as you have to put yourself at risk to capture the vip if they wear a gas mask. Melee aliens like reapers and sebillian brutes could also either resist or be immune to the gas, so it forces the play to get up close and personal with them if they want to capture them. These are just a few ideas, but I always liked the idea of gas grenades.
  9. So how will this mechanic work in game? Will having more power passively increase the effectiveness of these buildings or will there be a way to manually tune how much desired power is going into each building? Both perhaps? This mechanic sounds interesting and i hope it works well in practice.
  10. Perhaps there should be an extra option to make ufos and terror missions to have more panic for those people who want to remove the orbital bombardment while still wanting a decent challenge on the geoscape. I know that there are a decent chunk of people who might find the game too easy, yet will still continue to hate the bombardment mechanic, so buffing the panic caused by other sources might be a great idea to satisfy the needs of those people (and satisfy the needs of crazy people who somehow find the hardest difficult in the main game too easy, with new mechanics and all).
  11. Will the lead scientist be called Dr. Snidley in the game too? I saw that many people called the lead scientist Dr. Snidley and it would be cool to make that name canon.
  12. yeah, you can go over and switch to the community edition by going to the game and selecting properties> betas> then go over and select the community branch form the list. It should get rid of the most frequent bugs and glitches. I don't know if switching to this would break your current save game, so maybe start a new playthrough to be safe.
  13. I've noticed in Xen 1 that civilian casualties do not really affect the outcome of a mission that much. Sure, the results screen gives you a score based on how many you saved, but I did not notice any difference with funding or relations afterwards. Terror missions should be a mad rush to defend an invaded city from the aliens, but you can just take your time and slowly fight the aliens at your own pace without any negative effects. I'm wondering if making the deaths of civilians more impactful will improve the gameplay experience substantially. I would probably make it as a reward for finishing the mission with more civilians alive instead of as a punishment for not meeting the requirement. Perhaps some bonus cash for saving enough civilians would be enough to get some players to play a little faster and slightly riskier and make Terror Missions a little more exciting without actively punishing other players that prefer to take it safer (perhaps a 50% increase in monetization in the mission for saving 50% or more civilians would be a good enough bonus).
  14. Not necessarily, I'm around 18 myself. Not all of us are as impatient as the general stereotype labels us as. I actually really like some of the old-school design that comes from games like this. The Firaxis Xcom games, while great, cut out I lot of the gameplay that I liked from Xenonauts and the ordinal Xcoms. It just feels really restricting to have your soldiers automatically assigned a class, can only bring 1 item to a mission for most of the game, and cannot do basic things like shooting first then moving or being able to shoot anything on the map. My favorite thing about Xenonauts is how free it felt in comparison and how little it holds your hand at the start of the game. I think Chris did learn from the lessons that had been learned when he developed Xen 1; I just think that he made different mistakes than he did before. I do agree with Chris that it should be released publicly when it is possible to play the game all the way through without many game breaking bugs or major workarounds. It would be a better first impression than releasing it earlier, but I also agree with you that a public release in the next few months would be great.
  15. No, the open beta should be free just as it was initially planned. However, the early access release will have to be paid for in full price.
×
×
  • Create New...