TrashMan
-
Posts
1,634 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
29
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by TrashMan
-
-
4 hours ago, Wont Tell said:
Having to produce individual missiles (would you like to manufacture each individual round for the interceptro cannons too? and manage those being able to get restocked?) would require an insane amount of infrastructure, engineers, cash, in-game time and micromanagement by players, whether it's keeping production going on numerous bases or constantly transfering items from a production facility to each radar/interceptor base. Neither of the two is feasible for a satisfying gameloop. Your resources (time/money/personnel) are already scarce and way better allocated elsewhere.
No. Not ammo. It should work like guns do. In other words you'd get missile with 2(3) charges and you'd go back to base to re-arm, just like a gun does. OR you could have each missile be produced individually. But resource balancing have to be take into account.
Either BOTH need to be produced or NONE need to be produced. They half-half system feels random and senseless.
The problem is that infantry and aircraft are on a completely different scale of cost and resources. A rifle costs a few thousand tops. A missile? A rotary aircraft canon? An airplane? In any realistic scenario, for the price of ONE airplane you could equip an entire battalion of soldiers. In this, with completely opposites scales and costs (small squad level vs army level, at which aircraft operate), a realistic balance is simply not possible. That does not mean aircraft weapon should be free. Sure, their cost would be laughable compared to what is should be, but it already is, so its fine.
-
1. The idea that I have to produce pistols one by one, but I get free airplane missiles and gun is absurd. IT would make far more sense for it to be opposite, since those BIG guns would be far more resource and time intensive. Actually, the MOST sense would be for you to have to produce everything - all aircraft weapons included!
2. Missiles should have ammo and a fire cooldown. 2, perhaps 3 missiles, depending on missile. Naturally, aliens should have their own missiles, at least the fighters. Some balancing changes would be required. Perhaps even more missile types. Right now, the offerings are poor. The torpedo doing less damage than the regular missile, but stripping armor doesn't sit well with me. The closest analogue to the torpedo in Xenonauts 2 would be the AIM-54 Phoenix, and it vaporizes whatever it hits. Big missile = longer range and big boom. So I'd propose a shorter range, light missile (you can carry more of them), and a medium range missile (more powerful, longer ranged, but you can carry less)
As for torpedos, they are loooong ranged and you'd have two - one that is designed to strip armor and one that just does insane damage.
3. The first time I actually met a hazmat cleaner was in the mission to destroy their main base. From the beginning I've been fighting aliens. So the progression is kinda whack.
4. Aliens jumping from single UFO to 3 is too big of a jump. Start with one escort, because when two flights of 3 fighters start terrorizing a continent on the other side of the globe, you can do nothing about it without re-locating every single fighter you have there, an it still won't be enough.
5. More destinctions between weapon types (laser/plasma/ballistic). Upgrades to keep all famailies useful and competetive.
6. Selling stuff with actually being able to choose which nation you sell it to. And depending on how much you sell, allies on the field might be get better armor/weapons.
7. For crying out load, please make civilians LESS suicidal. Every mission I see them running INTO the ufo to be gunned down.
-
On 7/30/2020 at 6:42 PM, Ninothree said:
Yeah that is definitely true. Scifi authors spend their days imagining what lies next in technological advancement, so they are almost always going to beat the scientists and engineers who strive to bring those ideas into reality.
I think my complaint is that there are weak applications of future technologies. Like the way that the first Xenonauts game uses fusion in grenades. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me that sounds like that is not only impractical in terms of technology, but also implausible in terms of the science. So, whilst I am happy to have imaginary fusion technology, it doesn't feel right when that fusion technology is applied to handheld grenades. The problem is that you are asked to believe in miniaturised fusion technology ... ok, not too hard ... but all you get out of it is a slightly bigger boom ... not very satisfying, especially given that grenades tend to work using chemical explosives.
On the other hand, I'm not a physicist, so I don't even know for sure if fusion grenades are silly. And I don't think all scifi has to obey some rules of realism. It can just be for fun. As @ApolloZani said, the original xcom had pink mutons in green suits, thumping thrones in a pretty cheesy 80's fashion. A lot of the best scifi (think Ursula K Le Guin) doesn't even try and dig in to the rules of what is possible and plausible. But I think that when these games include research reports that give a science explainer, well, is it too much to ask for that explainer not to revolve around mumbo jumbo?
Fusion grenades sound utterly silly. You can't throw it far enough to get outside of the nuking radius.
-
On 7/30/2020 at 2:58 AM, ApolloZani said:
That's kinda the point? XCOM stuff is all science fantasy.
Not an argument. It's not a binary 0 or 1. It's a scale. And you can choose where you are on that scale.
There's a big difference between science-fiction and fantasy, in that one tries to keep things believable/within certain bound. Not necessarily real, but also not outright breaking every scientific law 100 times over.
I mean, if "it's fantasy" is justification, then ANYTHING can be justified. Literally everything. Humans could fart lighting. 2+2 = fish. You can become thin by eating more. Aliens could be literal space wizzard complete with pointy hats and beards and magic chanting.
Even in something like 40K (which is hillariously a thousand times more grounded than Marvel or DC), there's clear limitations. Space marines cross large distances by leaping bounds, because moving your legs faster in heavy armor just doesn't (and wouldn't) cut it. Super-heavy armor (Terminator) feels sluggish, not because it's slow (a space marine can run in it faster than a human can run), but because momentum due to it's sheer size and weight makes changing direction/turning rather difficult. A Repulsor (hover) tank crushes thing it flies over like it had tracks, because it's kept afloat by repulsing itself of the ground, not magically hovering.
But even when you write aliens doing incredible things, you can write them in a way that breaks less physical laws for the exact same effect. For example, the alien ship jumps out (hyperspace/subspace/wormhole instead of super-duper acceleration). Tough, to be fair, insane acceleration could be possible if you could generate a field that uniformely applies the acceleration to everything. Maybe.
-
Timeout for not liking something? Are you sure I'm the one acting inappropriately?
Also, I have no idea what lines you are referring to, but I don't idolize Arthur C. Clarke or anyone else for that matter, so I wouldn't refrain from criticism. No sacred cows for me, thank you.
-
On 6/25/2020 at 1:22 AM, ApolloZani said:
As expected, it changed orbit shortly before impact, Yu-Chang adjusted to match and UOO-1 made and impossible maneuver. We know of no material that could have survived such an acceleration, even solid steel would have rendered itself into molten slag subject to those forces.
I hate this bit.
Not only is it unnecessary (you don't need super-acceleration or impossible manouvers to alter trajectories, and the UOO-1 changed trajectory before that without it), it is also stupid. Acceleration that would MELT STEEL for a 200km object? This isn't science-fiction it is pure techno-magic fantasy. Even for a tiny object hat would be insane, and for a big one, it's insane squared.
-
On 7/7/2020 at 10:32 AM, EurekaSeven said:
From the beta video i watched recently, the Orbital Bombarment lore stated that the Earth launched 100 ICBMs towards UOO-1 but all got incinerated immediately. This lore might change afterwards but i guess the devs currently won't think about utilizing ICBMs into xenonauts arsenals and just stating that ICBMs are useless. Though i do hope that nuclear weapons would play a greater role lore-wise, relating them further with the Cold War settings.
That doesn't make much sense. If the aliens have point defenses capable of shooting down 100 missiles instantly, how can any aircraft missiles (you average fighter will only carry 4-8) hit? Why aren't they vaporized?
-
On 7/3/2020 at 2:37 PM, Alienkiller said:
That´s what I like from Phoenix Point. You don´t know what Art of abonded Bases you get. If we get the System like it´s now with the Main-Base (Atlas Base) then it will be so. But then with Buildings which have to be repaired etc. first like in Phoenix Point. Sadly we don´t have an comparition from the newest UFO Game UFO 2 Extratrerstials (similar to Xenonauts) right now, because it will come in September 2020 first.
So we couldn´t watch what´s good and bad, so we and the Devs / Freelancers have to fuge out a Base-Storyline from our Fingers and have only Phoenix Point and XCOM 1 from Firaxis as an Template if we wanna Xenonauts 2 in that Part 1.000 % better then in the Predecessor.
FYI, the Exploration aspect of Phoenix Point is getting a complete overhaul (for the better) with the next patch:
https://feedback.phoenixpoint.info/
https://feedback.phoenixpoint.info/feedback/p/base-discovery-and-activation-rework
https://feedback.phoenixpoint.info/feedback/p/exploration-rework
-
Any game that requires resource X will always have a preference for getting as much resource X as possible. It is common sense. And you cannot really get rid of resources. It is not money, it will be something else. You CANNOT get rid of the "optimal ways to play" thing. At beast you can muddy the waters. There will awalys be a best play to do in any single scenario.
But I do agree, offering multiple solutions to a problem might be a good idea to spice it up.
Personally, I think that maybe having aircraft and aribases as a separate thing (built on the geospace as a standard template, NOT like a regular base, you don't build specific facilites), so interceptors would not be housed in your regular bases at all. Just troop transports.
-
1
-
-
On 6/26/2020 at 5:33 PM, Ninothree said:
In X1, the base rush was similar to the the satellite rush in XCOM. Expand as fast as possible to prevent the damage the UFOs would do and increase income. No other strategy was as appealing. Nonetheless, I'm not sure where I stand on having 2 or 3 bases at the start. It makes sense intuitively (i.e. being given global support), but it removes the expansion phase of the game, which I'm not sure is a good thing.
Okay, it is infuriating to have to rush your expansion early on just so that you can effectively patrol all continents. But that push has a similar function to a timer - you have to move quick if you want to cover the globe. Personally, I like that kind of stress in a strategy game. Otherwise it is a bit of a sandbox. The problem is that it isn't a strategy so much as a logistical challenge of affording expansion as early as possible.
This is one argument that I never undestood. That a common sense strategy is bad.
It's like saying that puling a trigger on a gun to shoot people is boring because it's such an obvious thing, so everyone does it. There is an old saying, amateurs talk about Tactics, Experts about Strategy and true Master about logistics. War IS logistics. There's a reason Roman armies were so good - they had excellent logistic chains.
How would you even define expansion? Globe coverage? Advancement? Discovery? Now I'm just rambling here, but I'm not really sure what IS the problem or if it IS a problem at all.
There could certainly be ways around it.
Start with a base on each continent?
Have reduced/no penalites from continents without a base in the early stage, with some expected expansion goals you are expected to meet (you have a goal of 1 new base by the end of month 2, for example), or else you face penalties. Kinda works like a timer as well.
-
Did you try the new update that just released? And another one with even more great changes is also coming. The Devs listen to the community and have tracker of all features. It's getting better and better.
As to JA2. I consider it as a gold standard. You can say Xenonauts isn't trying to be that, but if you're making a squad-based tactical game, there is no better benchmark. No game does the "team of humans with guns" better.
So any time I see a so called squad-based tactical game that misses 90% of the tactical options, my heart sinks. Climbing on roofs, different movement speeds (sprint, run, walk, sneak), stances (standing, kneeling, prone), tons of equipment, fatigue/breath, proper bleeding and wounds, etc..
-
1
-
-
I prefer to custom-design each base according to my playstyle and needs.
Travel time alone should be a big factor in why multiple bases are needed. You're defending the entire planet. Having ONE team in one base is beyond retarded, even conceptually.
If anything, I think you should START with 2-3 bases, tough minimally equipped (as in, mostly unbuilt).
-
2
-
-
On 6/25/2020 at 1:14 AM, Xeroxth said:
@TrashMan Most games that have an ensemble of aliens never do it the same way so it’s not really that prone to tropes. While games with monogamous aliens with switching weapons really gets boring as they’re limited with the way of having equipments (unlike normal soldiers in a game like Jagged Alliance or Strain Tactics). See the recent disappointing Phoenix Point for that.
Phoenix Point is actually pretty good, especially with the new updates, so it utterly demolishes your point.
And funny you should mention JA2, since all it's opponents were human (unless you turn on the sci-fi mod, which adds the crepitus), and at no point was I ever bored or though the game lacked anything (despite laying the game many times). Probably because the core combat mechanics were so damn good. Still the king.
-
1
-
-
1 hour ago, Xeroxth said:
I agree that relying too much on gameplay over lore can harm a game. But having you enemies look different but still act the same with the same set of behaviors and equipment is just so boring. After all, the enemies must actually pose a threat that force player to create new strategies to defeat them.
No need to push an argument into extreme. No one said all enemies should be clones and act the same. But why should the aliens be a circus collection of super-different creatures? Yes, it is visually more diverse, but everyone and their grandmother does it.
You might as well say humans are boring because we all have 2 arms and use guns. I guess a sniper and heavy machingunner are the same.
I seriously don’t get why “believable” aliens always have to look humanoid.It doesn't, but for a species to form a space-faring civilization, certain requirements have to be met. Developed brain and visual sensors, flexible and strong manipulators, enough strength and endurance, etc...
-
Uniquness for uniqueness serves no purpose. Trying to create "original" aliens can backfire.
No, I don't think every alien needs unique mechanics/skills/powers. In fact, I hate that concept, as it feels too game-y, too artificial.
Then again, it depends. On the setting/universe, the feel and so on.
For Xenonauts 2, given it's setting/atmosphere, I'm more for the down-to-earth, believable aliens.
Everyone and their grandmother does the organic, body horror aliens these days. Shape shifters, mutations and transformations? MEh. Garbage IMHO.
And yes, the CODEX was EXTREEMLY stupid.
-
On 6/6/2020 at 4:28 AM, Bobit said:
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.
How is what I described a random status effect?
It's not random (depends on what is hit and how hard) and it doesn't last a turn. A crippled arm doesn't heal itself in a turn or two.
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.
That is a terrible way. Not only is it less coherent and sensible to have random, pointless limits like that, but it also screams ARTIFICAL. OR are you telling me you wouldn't have to explain that to the users, but something as natural as bleeding or broken arm is too complex to understand?
-
2 hours ago, Bobit said:
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.
Yes there is. There are plenty of other games that had such system, it's simple in how it works.
You either use 3D collision detection to determine which body part is hit (my preference), or a simple probability modifier depending on body part (I.E. - first roll to hit, then if it's a hit roll to determine which body part is hit). So, for example you'd have a 50% chance to hit torso, 10% head, 10% left/right arm and 10% left/right leg.
If you want to go the extra mile you can add the abillitiy to target specific body parts, which would increase the odds of hitting. Fallout had that a million years ago and it's an ancient game. It also had specific body part damage consequences too.
Damage to limbs and body parts can range from bleeding, AP loss, daze/confusion, accuracy loss, blindness, immobilization, inabiltiy to use two-handed weapons (if arm was disabled), etc.
All of these are interesting because they add more variable to the battlefield. Having to drag one your knocked out/immobilized/wounded men into cover, having to switch to pistol because your arm is shot. All of these are interesting and ad more gravitas to the battle.
-
1
-
-
I'll also add that turned-based games with too many troops are a slog, and that squad sizes shouldn't be too big. I'll never bring more than 12 troops.
-
On 5/29/2020 at 6:48 PM, Chris said:
Similarly, any armour system where every individual body part has its own individual armour is going to be way too complex when you're managing up to 16 soldiers in your squad, so that's a non-starter too.
I am going to LOUDLY object to this patiently false statement. There's nothing complex about it. Every turn you are going to be selecting and moving your troops, so you are going to be seeing the armor of every trooper. Not that the detailed armor info is THAT important, since limbs are less likely to get hit to begin with.
It is also a false assumption that a player needs to have ALL the information and that it has to be super-accurate.
-
1
-
-
On 5/29/2020 at 4:38 PM, Max_Caine said:
Trashman, I must confess I have some difficulty believing that you didn't know the thread existed. You see, I can see that on April the 23rd you checked out the Xenonauts 2 features board - which had the Armour discussion thread, which was titled "New Damage/Armor system" - went to the orbital bombardment thread and gave your opinions on Orbital Bombardment. Are you saying you went to the orbital bombardment thread and didn't once check out the armour thread? If you are, fair enough, but that day when you went to the specific forum on which that thread was advertised would have been your opportunity to give your two cents.
Max, I don't want to sound confrontaional, but I do not care. I'm telling you as it is, weather you believe it or not is not my concern.
These boards are slow so I generally only drop by 1-2 times a month (or when I'm bored) to see what's new. I have no idea how I missed that discussion. There was nothing to draw my attention to it I guess. Perhaps because the armor thread itself was so inactive.
Either way, you checking my posting history... assuming I'm a liar even tough I have been here from day 1 and never lied nor do I have a reason to lie....you sure aren't earning any trust points from me.
-
1
-
-
On 5/28/2020 at 1:36 PM, Max_Caine said:
A quick reminder to everybody, address the arguments made, not the person behind them. I'm not going to speak for Chris - he's more than capable of speaking for himself. What I can say is that the post regarding his proposed armour system was put up Feb 26, the last reply to it was March 12, and it has only been removed at some point in May, so there were at least 2 months where it sat for anyone to have a look and comment on. If it's going to sit uncommented on for a month and a half and only garner 8 comments in the time it was up, then the interest from the community in a fundamental system really wasn't there now, was it?
I would have commented... IF I KNEW THE THREAD EXISTED. How the hell was it even up for 2 months with so few noticing? Lul in activity? Corona?
Then again, I'm not camping on those forums 24/7, such important things should be advertised. Especialyl if there were few replies, the devs should have gone and placed a big "Look guys, we need feedback on this, please take a look" message on the top of the forums.
-
1
-
-
19 hours ago, Max_Caine said:
Again, unfortunately I can't - Chris has wiped all the threads I guess in prep for the upcoming version. However, I can do a summary:
Locational Damage
Raher than weapons doing 50-150% of damage, a body location is randomly chosen and has a damage multiplier depending on the body part. The examples given varied from 50% to 200%. at the moment, all locational damage will do is determine the damage multiplier but Chris has suggsted that this can form the skeleton of a more complex system which could become DLC later down the line.
Armour HP
Armour provides a squaddie a seperate pool of Armour HP that absorbs damage before the unit takes damage to their own HP. Armour HP is s permanently used when it stops damage, so 20 Armour HP is only ever going to prevent 20 incoming damage.
Resistances
The current armour system, which is a percent deduction from the damage caused by the weapon will still be present, this represents natural or implied resistances, e.g. wearing a rebreather will give 100% damage resistance to gas-type weapons.
Weapon Level & Armour Level
So, this is the complicated bit. It had me scratching my head at the time. All weapons and armour is assigned a "level". When the projectile from a weapon collides with armour, the weapon "level" and the armour "level" are compared. If the weapon "level" is higher than the armour "level" the weapon projectile gains an armour penetration bonus which ignores reistance and armour HP, if the armour "level" is higher than the weapon "level", a percentage of the damage is ignored. The degree of the bonus that either the weapon or the armour gets is dependant on the difference betwen the weapon and the armour.
E.G. If starting heavy armour had an armour level of 2, and the starting alien MAG pistol had a weapon level of 1, then the armour is 1 level higher than the weapon and gains a relatively small bonus, say, 30% of damage is ignored in addition to any natural resistances. However, if an alien plasma rifle had a weapon level of 5, then the weapon is 3 levels higher than the armour, and gains a much larger bonus, say, 90% of damage penetrates the armour and ignores armour HP and resistances.
That the entire system went by without enough feedback from the community is dishartening.
Reading that description, I can't say I like that system. Still better then nothing.
-
On 1/3/2020 at 12:33 PM, Coffee Potato said:
You could always throw in the Silent Storm system on top of a more basic system. All the benefits of a locational system without the technical fudgery. (There's an option in SA that turns on critical debuffs, which give all manner of different injuries, from busted limbs, to bleeding, blindness, unconsciousness, etc. You could have a unit in a mech suit suddenly get knocked out by a sniper shot getting through their armor. Felt really cool)
Is what I proposed really that complex?
7 armor pieces (or 5, if left/right arm and left/right leg are mirrored, but that make asymetrical armor impossible), each with 2 protection variables.
I don't see what is hard to understand, if the armor has 50 protection and 70 coverage on the arms it simply means the armor covers 70% of the arm effectively with 30% being a weak spot, hence a 30% chance to hit a weak spot if the arm is hit. I don't think it is possible to simplify this system further without loosing all the good part about it.
-
On 5/9/2020 at 3:40 PM, Max_Caine said:
So the way "Mind War" in X2 currently works is, if a soldier is affected it by it you have a full turn before it kicks in to do something. If you kill the alien who used Mind War on said soldier then it stops before it even starts. Otherwise, you can do things like drop the gun the soldier is carrying, or send the soldier off somewhere they can't be a problem. Or you can build mindshields which go into the secondary slot. There are options. It only really gets annoying if you have qute a few aliens using Mind War at once.
Speaking of Mind War, I can think of 3 different ways to spice it up/make it better, since 1 turn to activate it seems cheap: The soldiers fighting back during the Mind War.
1) The higher his willpower, the higher the penalties on all attributes while the soldier is MC'd. Even if he cannot fully break out of it, he can shoot worse than a star wars stormtrooper
2) The solider under MC gets a semi random TU cost increase for all actions (dependent on willpower)
3) The soldier under MC can at semi-ranom intervals (depending on willpower) simply suddenly stop and loose TU's
All of these simulate a soldier fighting back.
-
2
-
Character edit?
in Xenonauts-2 General Discussion
Posted
Are there any plans to add the ability to edit character? We can edit their names, but editing their sex, portrait, and nationality would be a god-send.