Jump to content

Kamehamehayes

Members
  • Posts

    176
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    9

Everything posted by Kamehamehayes

  1. @Chris I assume this means the October update right? Currently, this link leads to the September update instead of the October update. We already got one casualty of this as one person already posted to the September update thread instead. @st3fan21 If you are still hanging out in the forums somewhere, you should move your post from the September update thread to the October update thread if you are interested in the open beta. Otherwise, nice update. I hope that you and the team get a nice Christmas vacation and that v25 and open beta will have a lot of useful feedback to give once you return.
  2. A hybrid style might work as well. For the biomes that have little to no issue with randomization, they can be random, while biomes that are more difficult to randomize like cities can have more handcrafted maps to compensate for the lack of randomization. I’m not sure how well that would work in practice, but it might be a potential way of combating the problem.
  3. I definitely agree here. Weather effects should be something that is experimented with in the future builds. It does a lot of combating the problem of every air battle feeling the same and it could also be a ways of balancing some of the weapons and making them more unique. I have some other thoughts about other mechanics to add as well. -It might be worth removing rearming times entirely on the geoscape. If the intention is to make each air combat more unique and vary the weapons, planes, and tactics used in each encounter, having a rearming time that prevents the player from doing that seems counterintuitive. If rearming times were removed entirely, then the player could switch weapons on the fly and make air combat more dynamic and interesting. -I find the initial air combat project rather strange. The player has not yet actually fought an air battle at this point, so lore wise it doesn't make that much sense for the head scientist to come up with missiles and torpedoes specifically designed to take out ufos if you haven't fought a ufo in the first place, and it feels wrong to give the player more options for air combat at the very beginning of the game as they have not experienced air combat yet and do know the ins and outs of it. This obviously is not an issue with veteran players, but this will probably be a minor annoyance for first time players that may join in open beta, early access, or even release. I think this project should be pushed back until the player has actually shot down a ufo once and acquired its datacore imo. -I think there needs to be another slot on an airplane for misc upgrades to be placed on it other than just weapons and armor. This slot could add things like bigger aircraft radar, faster thrusters, slightly faster fire rate, esc. It would add a lot more utility, make each plane more unique, and make general air combat more interesting. -Evasive rolls probably need to have another look at too imo. If the intention is to make air combat more strategic, then the current implementation has the same issue as Xen 1 where it rewards better reaction times and/or pause mashing to optimally evade a ufo's shots. This is probably another reason why torpedoes are generally prefered. Since torpedoes lock out evasive rolls in their entirety and outrange everything, then there is no need to worry about evasive rolls and do air combat battles with less effort. I can't think of any great solutions right now, but there needs to be some tweaks to this mechanic. Perhaps having a timer on a ufo's head to show when they are about to fire can ease the problem a tiny bit?
  4. I have not played the game yet, but I have seen some weird stuff secondhand. The "decommission" option feels very strange to me. You apparently get nothing from decommissioning your aircraft and selling it. This feels like it actively punishes building a strong airforce of Angels early on as you get nothing for them once you replace them with Phantoms and beyond. There should be some small benefit for decommissioning aircraft in the short term imo, perhaps just selling an aircraft for half its creation cost is enough. https://youtu.be/Buv-F-XPKYA?t=10167 In this first video, a phantom was easily able to take out an abductor ufo with only autocannons with minimal damage. This feels very wrong for 1 interceptor with day 1 weapons to easily take out an abductor months later. https://youtu.be/9yeLM9E8Cu4?t=11897 In this second video, three phantoms equipped with laser cannons were able to beat a battleship with two escorts with relative ease. This is essentially the endgame air battle, the toughest one possible within the game, and it is able to be beaten with technology that can be acquired in the first few months. It feels very weird to not have to have to use higher tier weapons or the highest tier interceptor to take out a battle ship and two escorts. After the Phantoms escaped after taking out the battleship, the escorts seemed to have disappeared from the geoscape. I found that a bit odd. Summary and Other small thoughts -I think there needs to be a higher tier of ufo escorts to reinforce things like harvesters and battleships. The normal ones are just too weak to handle mid-lategame Xenonauts tech. Also, they need to stay on the geoscape even after the ufo they were escorting was destroyed. -It is very strange that 1 interceptor with autocannons can take out an abductor with ease, perhaps the secondary weapon of the abductor and other ufos needs to be buffed slightly in terms of armor destruction. -Decommissioning aircraft needs to have some slight monetary benefit outside of giving the player nothing in return. Receiving money equal to half the interceptors' construction cost might be enough. -Torpedoes are just too powerful compared to every other weapon because they outrange the majority of ufo, reducing damage taken to minimal levels. Perhaps the range needs to be cut down to mitigate this. -I think that having energy lances is good for the game because there would be way too many tiers for autocannons if every infantry weapon tier was included in them. I don't want to have to deal with ballistic, accelerated, laser, gauss, plasma, fusion, and probably mag cannons all at once. Having ballistic, accelerated, gauss, and mag for autocannons while having laser, plasma, and fusion for energy lances will be a much better balance. -Torpedoes are just too powerful compared to every other weapon because they outrange the majority of ufo, reducing damage taken to minimal levels. Perhaps the range needs to be cut down to mitigate this. -This may be the most controversial discussion point I have, but if one of the weapon tiers needs to go to prevent redundancy and overlap, then I think that Torpedoes would probably be the one to go out of the four. If it is too difficult to balance them while also keeping them distinct from missiles and energy lances, then it would be better to remove them and make autocannons, missiles, and energy lances more distinct from one another imo, and having two aircraft weapons being upgraded with the same research seems really redundant.
  5. Yeah, I guess the main talking point here is how much does the 5 shot mag downside actually effect combat on the battlefield. If it is only an inconvenience that is easily dealt with, then I think the current system falls on its head and using accelerated weapons is objectively worse than using laser weapons. How many laser mags are we talking here? 4-5? 6-8? Do you use those extra mags that you bring in or are they just a precaution to guarantee that you do not run out of ammo? We also have to take into account that in the majority of missions, most of the extra mags brought in might not be used at all, so those extra mags could potentially be substituted for something else. I’ve also seen that there is an undersuit available at the start of the game that increases strength by a small margin, that might be enough to bring in an extra mag or 2 and vastly counteract the ammo and armor weight issues. You can potentially hire and train extra soldiers with higher strength as well.
  6. Not necessarily. I’m proposing that the aliens should be tougher on their turn while nerfing their overwatch presence on the player’s turn, or allow the aliens to punish mistakes more easily while not overly punishing things like moving around the map. Essentially, more of the difficulty is being transferred from alien overwatch to the alien turn itself, so, theoretically, the difficulty will remain the same as before.
  7. Since it has been confirmed that the change of accelerated weapons no longer being unlimited is not a bug, but instead an experiment, what do you guys make of it and should it be reverted back to the previous model? I do not have access to the beta, so most of this is secondhand knowledge and speculation, but from what I’ve seen, accelerated weapons have struggled to compete with their laser cousins. Laser weapons are generally considered better than accelerated weapons, so they really struggled to shine. The main benefit the accelerated weapons was that they were unlimited and directly upgraded ballistic weapons to accelerated weapons. In the short term, it upgrades all the weapons of a specific type to the upgraded version immediately. In the long term, a soldier will be able to have a decent weapon if the worst were to happen (side base gets attacked, weapons get blown up, don’t have enough money to build stronger weapons, etc). Since they are not unlimited anymore, all of this utility is void and going straight to laser weapons is more viable than ever. I’ve seen that advanced lasers also do not upgrade the existing lasers to advanced laser either, so we should address that too. You can get laser weapons in the first few weeks of the campaign, the ammo issue is not really an issue for the most part, and they are cheaper to produce than the advanced lasers you acquire later (I think), so there is no reason to use advanced lasers instead of regular lasers outside of fixing minor ammo issues. I have no idea of how plasma weapons/fusion weapons and their upgrades compare, so perhaps someone who experimented with using them can comment on those tiers. Overall, I think that accelerated weapons and advanced lasers should permanently upgrade their respective predecessors as they did in previous builds to make upgrade decisions more interesting and to balance weapons tiers better.
  8. The issue is that reaction fire is extremely unbalanced and unfair as of now. From what these guys are saying, they are dying more often to overwatch fire on the player’s turn than to the aliens on their turn. This results in much slower play because overwatch camping is a much stronger and safer strategy on both sides than actually trying to take out aliens on your turn. There are ways to still make aliens strong and threatening without resorting to excessive overwatch fire from both sides. The game will become much more fun and dynamic if the player is encouraged to use all their resources to take out the aliens on their turn. In order to achieve this, overwatch fire on both sides probably needs to be nerfed somewhat. Perhaps a small nerf to accuracy, damage, or an increase in tus required to overwatch fire is enough to make player turn and alien turn combat more powerful and reliable for either side without killing off overwatch strategies entirely. Base attacks should probably have a small soft pressure as well to encourage the player to move out of the starting area. Perhaps the aliens can have a secondary objective of damaging and destroying base structures, which can stall things like research and engineering projects for a few days if they succeed, so the player can choose to stay and camp at the base’s center at a cost.
  9. I am an avid fire emblem player. I have played both fire emblem games that encourages slowly taking out enemies on enemy phase and games that encourages taking out enemies on player phase. The main differemce between the two is primarily the difference in enemy quality and slightly nerfing player options on enemy phase. Generally, a great increase in enemy quality will force the player to make great strides into assasinating the enemies on player phase and to be more agressive in general. The best example of this is in Fe fates conquest, where a nerf to some of the most popular enemy phase weapons and an increase in enemy stats and skills caused players to play it completely different than the previously release fe game. I am not sure if this will directly apply to Xen 2 or not, but nerfing overwatch fire slightly (by reducing damage or reducing accuracy) and slightly buffing enemy abilities should make players play more agressively on their turn because using overwatch fire to kill an alien on their turn is riskier and player phase combat will be inherenetly more reliable.
  10. Depending on who you ask, it definitely will make the game less interesting and diverse. Upgrading the dropship is only something that happens a couple of times in the game, which adds a lot of impact once you actually get the upgrade. If there were many dropships that you acquired all the time, then such an upgrade will have very little impact. There is also the issue of developer time, as each dropship takes a lot of effort in order to rig.
  11. oh, you mean that this isn't a critique of game balance, but just a suggestion. I see. I don't think that would be a great idea. Getting research projects that actually do nothing of value but to confuse the player doesn't feel like something worth adding. That's one of the various flaws of the xcom: ufo defense, giving you lots of research projects with the majority being completely useless.
  12. are you talking about xen 1, xen 2, or both? I find that all the projects have some use or utility that makes them worthwhile, and it is pretty easy to tell which ones lead to what kind of technology (with the exception of some of the alien weapon researches in xen 1, sometimes it's hard to tell/remember which weapons are needed for plasma weapons and which are needed for mag). although in xen2, there are a few research projects that don't lead to very much. That has more to do with stuff not being implemented yet than it actually being a game balance issue.
  13. @Chris I think this is important enough to ping you for. There has been a lot of bot activity in the forums, and I think there should be better bot protection on the forums. I worry for the health of the forums if this isn't addressed quickly. I imagine that if the bots do their shenanigans when the open beta releases or whenever there is a lot of traffic on the forums in general, then it will delay progress by a lot. A better system should be implemented to prevent this as much as possible. Thank you in advance!
  14. The player will not always win every tactical mission. Xcom games are fundamentally designed with ironman in mind, and allow the player to continue to play after losing a couple missions. Every mission has a risk of loss, so managing resources is crucial to the survival of soldiers on the battlefield. Restrictions, while arbitrary for the most part, allow for the tensity in missions to not let up because things can always go wrong. With too many things available to the player, that tensity will be much less and the game will not have as good of an atmoaphere. Practically speaking, yes, the player will always win the mission and will likely do it without losing a single soldier, meaning the tense atmosphere is likely lost to begin with, but it is there for those that choose to fight past their mistakes and triumph and grow through hardship.
  15. I also think that adding variance to the enemy is important to increasing tactical complexity; however, I think restricting the player is also extremely important. Strategy games give the player a very limited set of resources, and it is up to the player to make sacrifices and compromises to make best use of their limited resources. These resources range from time, money, materials, soldiers, and, yes, inventory space. Due to this system, you can't just have a sniper that has a shotgun for close quarters with a grenade launcher on the side. You have to choose between what you need and what you can leave behind. You have quite a few shotgun users, do you need the shotgun? Or maybe you really need a grenade launcher, can you build your kit in a way that keeps the grenade launcher and reloads while keeping a sniper rifle or shotgun? If you increase the inventory space, then you have no need to make those descisions. You can just have all of that in your bag, and each individual soldier can be built to deal with any situation, and most of them will end up similar.
  16. Sure, but just because something is interest doesn’t mean that it is a good thing for the game. Like some of the ballistic properties in the original xcom. Sure, it is cool that in burst fire if one hit a wall it would be destroyed and the other two shots would go through, but it does sacrifice balance in the process. Rifles are generally the strongest weapons in that game, and the heavy plasma is downright broken, and such a mechanic only goes further into into buffing them. If such a mechanic were implemented into Xen 1, then it would be even more powerful because 1 shot can destroy a wall the the 9 other shots can go past it if used with a machine gun. The inventory space is meant to be a restriction of what a soldier can take; you don’t want to give the player too much space in the inventory because it allows a soldier with enough strength to take however much they want. You don’t want to give the player an opportunity to fill a backpack full with smoke grenades and trivialize every mission because they alien cannot hit you. Does it give more interesting strategic and tactical options? Yes, but it can ruin balance and make restrictions less meaningful and may buff certain strategies that are undesirable.
  17. I mean, all of that is with endgame levels of strength. It does not represent the loadouts of soldiers the rest of the game. In terms of the rest of the game, soldiers are restricted by their strength stat first and foremost from what I played. Even in endgame, my soldiers did not make use of all of the inventory space in Xen1. They either had pedator armor, which either could not use the majority of things I would want to put in there or they would be weighed down by a signularity cannon, or had an extremely high starting strength stat, which is rare across my roster. Even then, I would mostly just be filling their backpacks with tons of grenades, and I would not even use the vast majority of those grenades anyways.
  18. It was removed because Chris didn't think it was needed after the secondary slot was added, so you would be holding the pistol in your hand instead of extra slots on your belt. And being able to hold a secondary weapon for free and have another one on your belt sounds a little bit overkill imo. I don't think that adding extra battle harnesses is very necessary. It's doubtful that a soldier will make much use of it because of strength problems, and it feels like it it overcomplicating the soldier screen too much. I'd probably fill those extra slots with more grenades anyways, so I definitely would not be using it to bring more pistols, stun buttons, combat knifes, or whatever.
  19. From what I understand, the extra slot is just there to make managing the inventory easier. I think Chris found it a little bit tedious that you have to go into the inventory to switch to a pistol, medkit, or whatever. Having an extra slot makes it easier to switch without checking the inventory. There should be an overwatch symbol to the bottom right of each weapon on the ui. You can either leave it alone or have it crossed out to determine which weapon will be used for overwatch. Although, I think the currently active weapon will have priority over the inactive one. I don't think its particulaily cheap as it feels like pistols were rebalanced to allow for snipers and heavy weapons to have better shortrange while also nerfing the damage of pistols by a little bit (it feels like pistols are weaker than they were in Xen 1 imo).
  20. Thanks. Sry about that. Nice catch. I have a few questions about the sell price curve. Will there be a minimum value that each individual item will sell at or will the value of those items eventually approach 0 if you would keep selling them? Also, will the value of those items eventually rise to their original value over several months of not selling?
  21. Exciting that the game is finally going into open beta. I would like to get into the v25 open beta. I look forward to playing Xen 2.
  22. Interesting idea. Something like this will add to the whole Cold War atmosphere because NATO and the Soviet block would be working on different projects and work like different factions. The Xenonauts could obtain new research and tech from them by siding with them, at the cost of suffering loss of relations with the opposing faction (much like in pheonix point). However, I don’t know how long this will take to set up, so we might have to shelve it for a different idea if there is not enough developer time.
×
×
  • Create New...