TrashMan
-
Posts
1,644 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
30
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by TrashMan
-
-
Nah, the problem isn't power, it's ammo. Modern miniguns have a rate of fire setting, since 6000RPM is overkill, but even 3000RPM eats trough ammo like crazy.
Caseless bullets would reduce weight a BIT, but a minigun basically requires everyone in the squad to carry extra ammo for it, otherwise it's only good for 2-3 bursts. Those 2-3 burst will obliderate anything that isn't heavily armored, but still.
http://www.emptyshell.us/xm556-microgun/
-
17 minutes ago, Skitso said:
Making them more intelligent, giving them better and more varied tactics, surprising new special powers and weapons that are not just same old with bigger numbers... make them evolve as the game progresses and really challenge player to adapt.
Unfortunately Xenonauts2 suffers from the same problem as Xenonauts1 - stale progression. All weapons are mechanically the same. You'd think laser weapons would behave different than projectiles, but they don't. It's boring, predictable "Tier 2 is just tier1 weapon with + damage and a different icon". It's even worse that every tier has the same weapons.
How cool would it be if lasers acted like lasers (highly accurate and long ranged, but damage falls off with range, smoke greatly reducing damage) OR perhaps damage depending on TU's spent?
-
Personally, I' don't like the look of that aircraft. But it's easy enough to mod I guess.
I recall in Xenonauts 1 I added more aircraft with somewhat different stats, so there was more choice. For example, at start you could choose to build a modified MIG or a modified F-14 and it felt much better.
-
It appears later and it's extra tanky from the front. And will always face a source of sound. Use that to have it turn. You want to flank this one.
-
Shouldn't the player be required to build a containment facility before he can capture aliens?
And if they are kept in the lab, should alien invaders be able to free them during invasions is they reach a lab?
-
2
-
-
I kinda agree. You should get something. At least generate a drone crash site (the one that gets automaticaly looted)
-
I think fully auto should also be an option. Spends ALL TU and the number of bullets depend on how many TU you had compared to the averge number of bullets fired.
I'd also kill for a gattling gun that fires a burst of 50 bullets (but requires you take a huge and heavy ammo backpack to use it). Just look at this:
-
We can customize name, but please, PLEASE let us be able to select/change other aspects - sex, face, nationality.
It would be perfect for let's plays and re-creating specific individuals (like for example if you want your friends or family)
P.S. - asian females could use a few more faces that don't look ugly. But I guess mods will fix that.
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
-
2
-
-
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.
-
1
-
-
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.
Milestone 4 Balance & Feedback thead!
in Xenonauts-2 General Discussion
Posted
At normal infantry engagement ranges laser diffusion/diffraction shouldn't be a big issue. That said, at high altitude because of thinner atmosphere/less dense air laser would be more effective... but so would the distances.