Krydax
-
Posts
6 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Krydax
-
-
On 2/5/2023 at 1:12 AM, Melee said:
Issue #5 - When pistoling the first soldier with Chang, he can shoot the second soldier first, but then he cannot shoot the first soldier and must shoot the already dead second soldier again to continue. It's also possible to target the box in front of the second soldier with the demolition charge and leave the first soldier undamaged.
I had this happen to me as well
-
In addition to OPs original thoughts, I think armor in general should reduce bleed chance. With the percentage of the shot that is absorbed by armor being translated into some amount of bleed chance reduction. With it being 100% bleed chance reduction somewhere around 50-75% damage absorption.
-
1 hour ago, Kamehamehayes said:
I think the issue with savescumming comes down to the options you have to contine after a unit death. Either you continue to push on or you reload to prevent the death of that unit.
In another tactics game like fire emblem, the issue is a lot less pronounced. Your two options are to push on or to restart the chapter completly (if one chooses classic mode). You can lose a meaningful amount of progress if you chose to reset as opposed to pressing on. So many players chose to press on to maintain their progress.
This is not apparent in Xcom like games where you can just reload the save from the previous turn and lose 0 progress. Thus, there is no strategic or time benefit for not reloading, making reloading a clear optimal strategy.
Xen 2 has done somethings to try and tackle this problem like have a chance for a soldier to survive a lethal blow or having strong units that can be manufactures that require no training, but it is not enough as it is clear to see. There definetely needs to be something else to help discourage players from reloading outside of arbitrary restrictions like ironman, honestman, or house rules imo.
Well, there are other reasons to reload, and it's not just reloading to "last turn".
I would argue that the biggest issue is that there's a massive information differential between loading and not loading. And the game would be better served by giving the player MORE information on the front end, and creating surprise and difficulty in other ways. I'd rather have the game be slightly harder, but I can see the map and know how many and what general type of aliens will be there. Then, loading isn't this MASSIVE advantage of knowing the map and enemy makeup/location.The other way to solve the problem is reduce the players information when loading a save. Such as the randomization upon restart option I mentioned earlier. So that you can restart a mission and stuff gets randomized again, so you might know the overall types/numbers of enemies, but the map and their locations is new again so you can't use your previous knowledge, and thus restarting isn't as big of a "cheating advantage" (if that's how you saw it).
-
I mean, "will bring down" as it, bring it lower. Not like "kill it" bring it down.
-
I have a long-ish thought on one of the mechanics here. Just a preface, I am a long time XCOM EU and XCOM2 (and long war and long war 2) player. So I am new to the xenonauts world in general. Let that be the grain of salt
Here's the main thought: These games suffer a LOT from the massive gap between save scum and no-scum (ironman-ish). You know nothing going into a mission. Let's count all the major things you don't know:1. You don't know the types of enemies you'll be facing
2. You don't know even the general placements of enemies.
3. You have no idea how many of them there are.
4. You have no idea what the map even looks like (despite a helicopter having just flown you into the area?!)
5. You have no idea what is inside various buildings
6. You have no idea where the objectives are.
7. You have no idea where to send most troops or any reasonable distribution/defensive areas to take
Then guess what, if you play some of the mission, and then decide to restart. What percentage of those things do you now know? ALL of them! (or at least some to most, depending on how far in you got) I believe that this is a huge problem as it more or less forces players into a binary decision of playstyle even though there are more than 2 types of players (you either save-load or you don't).
Fact A: Some players love ironman and love not having info. The game meets their needs.
Fact B: Some players love ironman but hate not having any of that info. The game does not currently meet their needs.
Fact C: Some players love loading saves, and love not having the info on the first go, but love having the info on the second go. The game meets their needs.
Fact D: Some players love loading saves, but they want the info to stay hidden even on future loads, so as to not feel "cheaty". The game does not currently meet their needs.
Fact E: Some players love things the way they are, but wish more of that information was available prior to the mission in the first place, and didn't require playing and save-loading to get said info. The game does not currently meet their needs.
(I am somewhere between player D and player E, for what it's worth.)But there's this huge gap between loading a save and not. Because once I have ALL that information, the mission is now MUCH easier, and maybe all I really wanted was a second try or maybe I just wish that info had already been available in the first place, since it's achievable simply by loading the game anyway. How do we solve this issue? Some ideas in no particular order:
1. Give the player vision of the maps layout/obstacles, but still under fog of war (not building interiors). This makes sense anyway, you just saw it all from the helicopter!
2. Give the player more info on enemy count/makeup either prior to the mission itself or upon landing. This again could make sense since you saw some aliens chillin around the place as you flew in and landed. (i don't know if the game already has this mechanic in place or not via technology. But either way, it's the issue of "info available from save-loading")
3. Give an option for "semi ironman", which allows for restarting a map completely from the beginning, at will, but it's randomized again. So you don't know everything about it. But now you'll at least know the enemy types and rough numbers, and you get another shot at it.
4. Other types of ways to feed the player information from the list of 1-7 above *without* needing a load a save to do so. This in turn means that loading a save isn't as much of an egregious advantage. This may also in turn require difficulty of the game to be slightly higher.
In closing, I believe the difficulty differential between information pre and post save-load is too drastic, and it forces players into a binary playstyle that doesn't fit some players (myself being one of those middle people). Ironman by itself is not a catch-all option, and is too extreme for many players, and those of us who avoid ironman are left with few options other than forcing ourselves to NOT save-load, which approaches being ironman anyway, or save-loading and getting massive advantages.
-
1
-
Xenonauts 2: Base Mechanics
in Xenonauts-2 Features
Posted
My suggestion after playing the demo:
Make building multiple structures at the same time penalize build time, but not to the full ratio, as well as an overall reduction to the "normal" build times.. Let me explain what I mean and then I will explain the benefits.
These numbers are purely for example's sake:
Building 1 building goes at 100% rate (total work rate of 100%)
Building 2 buildings goes at 65% rate (total work rate of 130%, each building individually would take ~54% longer)
Building 3 buildings at once goes to 50% rate (overall rate of 150%, each building taking 100% longer)
Building 4 buildings at once goes to 40% rate (overall rate of 160%, each building taking 150% longer)
Building 5 buildings at once goes to 35% rate (overall rate of 175%, each building taking ~186% longer)
Current mechanics are as follows:
Building 1 building: 100% rate
Building 2 buildings: 100% rate, total work rate of 200%
Building 3 buildings: 100% rate, total work rate of 300%
Building 4 buildings: 100% rate, total work rate of 400%.
With the above, you can see how the current mechanics are kinda busted and extremely heavily favor building multiple buildings at once. With my idea for a changed system, buildings would have build times reduced across the board, but there would be penalties to building multiple buildings at once.
NOW you have a trade-off! Build 1 at a time, you get the benefits sooner, but your overall work rate is a BIT lower. Build multiples at a time, and your overall work rate is higher, thus being more efficient, but it takes longer before you see any individual benefits from your buildings. My numbers are purely for conceptual example, and can/would be tweaked. But I believe an idea like this will make the base construction far more strategic and interesting. Rather than what it is right now, which is simply "If you have money, build it ASAP. # of projects concurrent doesn't matter"