TrashMan
-
Posts
1,634 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
29
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by TrashMan
-
-
3 hours ago, Max_Caine said:
To make using more than one dropship viable, there would have to be a deliberate effort to sabotage the teleporter, either through the introduction of mechanics that make the teleporter less and less valuable, or by scrapping the mechanic all together. Is that really what people want?
Since I HATE teleportation, that would be a big YES from me.
-
Quote
We're also making a couple of simplifications to the mechanics in other areas.
- Personnel and Base Stores are global across all bases (assume the bases are linked by alien-derived translocator gates)
- The Xenonauts only have one troop dropship at a time
Can't say I'm too fond of this. ESPECIALLY the second one.
First is better without any silly magitech explanation (just gamepaly mechanics for player convenience), but I liked the logistics aspect of it in X1. Making sure the material you need is where you need it most IS a crucial aspect of high-level warfare. Logistics is king that reigns above tactics and strategy.
Being limited to just one dropship when you have multiple bases...just no.
And lastly, personally I'd have two types of bases - general bases and air bases. General bases would not contain any aircraft (or at least not any that isn't VTOL)
Air bases could contain barracks, radar, defenses and similar, have long runways and hangars, but would not contain research, containment or similar.
The reasoning behind it quite simple - it makes little sense to put your hidden HQ in a place that is highly visible and easily detected - and anything that has a lot of aircraft and runways is going to be just that. However, how something like that would end up feeling during actual gameplay is questionable. I have no idea if it's a good idea or a bad one.
EDIT: WHY the frak can't I edit the quotes??
-
21 hours ago, Decius said:
It's the same design issue as not having close air support; at some point you just trivialize the game parts of the game.
CAS could be added (a helicopter/VTOL vehicle that you can periodically call in - but that again comes at a cost - another hangar space, another aircraft to maintain, and it wouldn't be of use on many maps), but at the same time, what about alien CAS? Just because you were able to land troops, doesn't mean you have air dominance.
Basically, there are 3 scenarios:
1 - you have a support craft, the aliens don't: Every X turns you can call in support
2 - you don't have support craft, the aliens do: Every X turns, the aliens can call in support
3 - both side have support craft - the support craft duke it out, air support is either unavailable or sporadic
Then comes the question of power. If CAS has the big guns, then regular cover is NOT going to keep your troops safe, and suddenly the entire dynamic breaks. Loosing your troops to attacks you cannot counter is no fun. Thus there would have to be a way to keep your troops safe (perhaps a way outside of your own CAS). Soldiers with AA missiles that project a BUBBLE inside which the enemy CAS cannot operate?
It becomes a complicated issue or how do I make it fun, engaging AND make sense?
-
13 hours ago, Kindred192 said:
I always found it odd in these games that your organization can own multiple dropships, but can't seem to figure out how to send them all on the same mission together.
Makes sense from a game balance perspective. Not so much from a real world logic perspective
I'd say it is balanced by the need for two hangars, two dropship and twice as many troops (and $$$ to pay for it all).
I find it is bad design when the player has the resources, but the game does not let you use them.
-
On 5/31/2019 at 2:13 PM, Kaiphus_Kain said:
I disagree with you here, unless you know programming well, specifically the medium Chris and the team are using and how or what would need to be done then you can't suggest it is simple enough, it could be fairly minor or it could mean creating a massive amount of work in all layers of the game to add a system that effects both ground combat and the geoscape etc. What sounds simple enough may in effect be stupidly complicated or time consuming, only Chris and the team can know that one.
I do know programming, which is why I'm saying it. If altering this require massive work on multiple layers, then that would speak very poorly on the initial implementation of the system. There shouldn't BE multiple layers to a simple string display.
-
45 minutes ago, Kaiphus_Kain said:
Whilst I understand where you are coming from here I believe there would have to be a fairly major re write of large portions of the game to make any changes to the rank anything more than cosmetic, at this point I doubt highly that there is the time or money to do a major overhaul and creation of a completely new way of dealing with the way soldiers work, I could be wrong but based on past posts I cannot see it happening.
Edit: To put it another way, currently the Rank system and its names are like painting a wall of your house, completely cosmetic, what you are talking about is rebuilding all the walls while the roof is still on, major engineering.
Given that rank is not tied mechanically to anything, re-writing it should be simple. As well as adding promotions.
The mechanics behind it are simple enough. A promotion bottun that appears on eligible xenonauts (level being the measure) that changes their rank. SHOULD be a quick and simple job. But every hour of work time is precious, so the eternal question of allocation of time and resources and worth rears it's ugly head.
-
21 hours ago, Kaiphus_Kain said:
There is also no good reason to mess with them since they are essentially meaningless, it's an aesthetics point only. You could just change it to something like Operative and Specialist etc, it still wouldn't make any real difference.
Edit2: To Clarify, changing the ranks serves no purpose unless you change a hell of a lot more to make it do something other than be a basic visual aid to a units experience/progression.
If something doesn't have a mechanical purpose, then the only purpose it can have is aesthetics/clarity and worldbuilding/sense.
-
13 hours ago, Max_Caine said:
If you implying that's autistic, then you need an actual definition. Here you go.
I'm aware of the definition. But I'm also aware of a colloquial/free/common use.
Also, I don't think Ruggerman mentioned aesthetics. He simply said the rank feel odd and make no sense, and I agree. That's good enough of a reason for the simple reason there there IS no reason for them to be like they are in the first place. It certainly isn't for clarity, because while most people have heard of miltiary ranks, most also don't really understand those ranks.
-
Sorry, I don't have photographic memory of every conversation I had on every forum (have you any idea how many game/modding forums I'm on and how many discussions on mechanics I had?). Right now, I don't recall that discussion at all.
That you went trough all the trouble to search and dig up all those threads is very....autistic?
Either way, if a simple level number is too bland, how about special badges? Does not have to be real-work rank badge, but something made-up.
Would be nice if one can track stats for soldiers - total aliens killed, kills by types, times wounded, average accuracy, etc..
-
On 5/25/2019 at 10:32 PM, Max_Caine said:
We went through all of this with X1. With X1, we asked "why are real world ranks being used?". The answer was that using ranks was a very quick way for someone to see how potent a solider was. We asked about offficer/solider structure. We were told no. I see quite a few people who followed X1's development. I'm surprised those people don't remember how often the topic came up, and how often it was shot down. Anyone remember the thread where a load of us suggested different rank titles because none of us liked the aesthetic of using real-world rank titles? None of it mattered. If you think you can get a rank structure into X2, good luck to you but you'll need a REALLY COMPELLING reason.
Rank is not a proper representation of potency, so if THAT was the reason back in X1, it was a really stupid one. No offense to the devs, but what's wrong with simple levels? A number is even MORE informative than rank, because your average player won't know the military rank structure.
Level is a soliders level (actual power), Rank is their Rank (and in small squads there would be only a few anyway).
-
Most things are "not a big deal", but the devil is in the details.
Heck, those little tiny things you can pul off are the best things about games.
Anyone remember the live c4/grenade hot potato trick you could do in some old games?
-
All the walls of texts, and nothing really changed in the end.
Geoscape is still real-time by any sane, workable definition.
Either way, planes work very differently for humans, so even if you made air combat turn-based, it would STILL require a separate set of mechanics anyway. Same holds true for geoscape. The time, scale and requirements of all 3 are completely different.
-
1
-
-
21 hours ago, Chris said:
Strength gain hasn't been implemented because I don't know exactly how it should work quite yet. The fundamental problem is actually exactly what you outlined in your post Wyldfyre - strength is very important for which soldiers get heavy weapons and heavy armour, but after a four or five missions in X1 any soldier will gain +10 strength and even a weak soldier ends up being fairly strong and can carry whatever they want (because obviously I can't make weapons and armour too heavy, otherwise rookie soldiers won't be able to use most of their equipment).
Whereas a soldier that starts with high strength and can carry heavy things right from the start doesn't gain much advantage from further strength gain ... which makes strong soldiers kinda pointless. After a few missions, everyone becomes an Olympic weightlifter and it's irrelevant. More variance in the starting stats might mitigate this to some extent, but I'm not really sure. Or maybe a system where armour can become somewhat more protective at the cost of more weight. Something that makes Strength more interesting than in X1.
Something like extra protective plates that a soldier can carry?
You can go that route...or you can have encumbrance affect AP's. That way a stronger soldier does get a benefit.
Something like AP = Max AP - MaxAP*(carried weight/optimal weight*10)
If a soldier has a standard max carry/optimal weight of 100 (before becoming encumbered), but is carrying 150, then his AP are reduced by150/100 = 1,25*10 = 12,5%
Conversely if he carried 50, then his AP penalty would be 50/100 = 0,5*10 = 5%
Or both??
-
So it doesn't really have turns then? You do realize that by that definition, everything is turn based, since the computer calculates things in intervals. Might be 10miliseconds or however small, but it does. Time itself can be cut down into minimal intervals (Plank time, the smallest measurable time unit in which something can happen), so you can say Reality is turn-based by that logic.
Turn-based games have distinct phases that are recognized by the system and part of gameplay. And while there are some hybrid systems, what is and is not turn-based is not rocket science. The Geoscape is NOT turn-based by any definition.
-
Have ranking be separate. Have the player be the one to pick and promote.
You don't need a rank to indicate the power of indivudual solider. You can just show level. OR maybe a different badge for each level (NOT a rank badge, a completely separate badge)
-
On 5/17/2019 at 4:55 PM, Decius said:
You've now either defined Rogue as Real Time With Automatic Pause, or Diablo as Turn Based Without Pause. Using non-functional definitions doesn't carve reality at the joints.
How do you figure that? Since when can Diablo be considered turn-based? There are no phases in it, no turns, no breaks in the action or execuation.
-
I would be against it. There is no sense to having them. Dogs have no reasonable way to damage an alien that has armor resistant to rifle rounds. They also have to close the distance which would just result in dead doggos. And I absolutely cannot stand that. I still have flashbacks to DogMeat.
Dogs just have no place in combat scenarios. In various support roles, sure. They can be used for therapy, guard duty, detection of dangerous substances, search and rescue. But all of those come AFTER the area has been secured.
As for scouting, you have drones for that. Especially todays tiny flyer drones. Dogs have no way to relay back information. Unless you want to stick a camera on their head, but even then you cannot give them instructions on where to look.
As much as I love dogs, I just don't see a viable and rewarding way to add them.
-
On 1/27/2019 at 6:59 PM, Chris said:
Visualising the damage probably isn't impossible but it does add an extra level of complexity to the system. Where do these missiles come from? Presumably we'd have to place specific SAM sites on the map that they originate from?
Most air defenses today aren't static sam-sites, but vehicle mounted systems. They can move around and are not tied to a specific location. So no issue there.
-
On 5/14/2019 at 10:18 AM, AvonWolf said:
Actually forgot about that game, it is a simple way to make use of both pilot/plane stats and give user some control as well. Would love something like this in X2.
Need to go find that game again. ;-)
There are several fan-made projects to make a sequel. You might want to look at Supremacy or BOTF2. I haven't look at them in a long time so I have no idea what state they are in.
And I hope Chris considers this. This method, or back to real-time with pause with proper dogfighting.
It's actually far simpler than people think, as there is a limited set of things you can do. It also depends if you long-range fighting or dogfighting.
So it boils down to:
- your planes strengths
- the enemy planes strengths
- type of battle (high or low alititude, long range or short range)
For example: The F-14 is a long-range interceptor. It excells at long-range missile fights, since no plane can match it's AVG-9 radar and AIM-54 missile combo. While it is a big airplane with a lot of thrust and great fuel efficiency, it was not made to dogfight. But it CAN dogfight real well if it plays to it's strengths - at low-speed and low-altitude it can turn REALLY well, and it's high trust and variable wings means it can climb well and high loop better than most fighters.
How do you fight it? Let's say you're a F-18. If at high altitude, missiles have longer range so it WILL be able to shoot at you LONG before you can shoot back. To beat the missile you dive down into denser air and notch (try to move at 90° to the missile) - this will slow the missile down, require it travel a greater distance and make it have to correct it's course more often, robbing it of energy. Also chaff. You can out-turn the F-14 at higher speeds and you try to keep the fight higher up.
All of this may sound complex but it can be easily simplified into several stats and manouvers.
-
On 5/15/2019 at 2:41 AM, Decius said:
For all practical purposes, the geoscape IS essentially turn based. You make a handful of decisions, see what their outcome is, end 'end turn' by hitting the fast-forward button to find your next decision node.
Turn-based is defined by having fixed turns, by having specific actions phases. For example, in D&D a turn is EXACTLY 6 seconds.
Simply having the abilitiy to pause doesn't make it turn-based. Hell, I can play Baldurs Gate right now and "pause" but it's almost meaningless, since all orders are only carried out within those 6 seconds (meaning I can order my guy to cast a spell, but he will wait his turn before he does it).
Basically, real turn-based not only gives you as much time as you want to think about what you are about to do, but both you and the enemy fight in very specific phases.
While real-time with pause does give you time to think, it does not have phases.
-
1 minute ago, Dagar said:
Come on, the Geoscape is different and you know it. Don't argue just for the sake of it. Nothing that happens on the geoscape relies on you getting the fraction of a second right where you have to pause (or slow down to the minimum), not even in X-Division, which is much more demanding in that regard.
As to your question: because it makes sense and most games keep that kind of consistency, so players expect it. Everything else I already stated, no need to repeat myself.
It's not different, you just want it to be. So the "don't argue for the sake of it" goes right back at you.
Ground play is turn-based. Geoscape is real-time. Fact. Air combat in X1 being more time sensitive is irrelevant it's still the same time system.
And if you say "because it makes sense" then I'll say it back to you. Because it makes sense. In geoscape the happening time is in hours/days/weeks/MONTHS, and the game auto-pauses when important things happen. Otherwise an UFO might raid you base or bomb a city before you can react. So yes, a fraction of a second can be REALLY important evne there.
And in air combat- it's air combat. You damn right a second can make or break a fight.
But to offer a solution to YOUR problem - partitioned turn-based combat. If you ever played Birth of the Federation you'll know what I mean. For those that never played that game - it's basically a mix between turn-based and real time. The game auto-pauses every X seconds and gives you the opportunity to give new, broad orders (flank, evade, assault, circle, Charge, etc..). But within those X seconds you cannot pause or give orders (to individual ships or groups). Different manouvers have different strengths and weakneses and ships have strengths and weaknesses that makes for an interesting battle. All of this could be applied to fighters in a simplified way.
You can order a fighter to perform a specific manouver, or let the AI handle it (higher pilot skill picks better). As fighter have different performance stats, you can get engaging results.
One fighter might excel at low-altitude turning at slow speeds. Another might be a great climber (making it a perfect candidate for a vertical loop manouver). There are several basic fighter manouvers and methods than once you understand them, you can model an actual dogfights in simple terms. It doesn't take much.
-
14 hours ago, unit said:
yeah i'm just gonna jeer from the crowd on some of that ['coz it's similar to some of what I was sayin' back there anyways & uhh..] if you're going to be developing 3D models for all those planes & etc then surely ya can work on that k9 unit some of us have been pestering you about too, eh? :bananamandance.gif:
While I ADORE dogs, I don't see the value of a K9 unit here. They are used for searching for contraband and light support roles, not front-line combat. And since most aliens will wear body armor, a dog would be just a short-lived (literally) distraction.
Lastly, I don't wanna see doggos getting killed. I have enough of RPG's forcing me to kill wolves.
-
21 hours ago, Dagar said:
Umm... because people buy XCOM-like games because of the tile-based, turn-based tactical combat, and the Xenonauts air game is neither turnbased (i.e. you want to unpause-pause the game as quickly as you can in order to maximize efficiency) nor tile-based (meaning that you have to navigate in very small increments of two dimensions instead of the coarse tileset that is present in ground combat). I.e. by the logic that it has very different game mechanics compared to the meat of the game. And no, it's not like saying don't make hard games. It's like saying don't make mechanically inconsistent games.
So does the geoscape. Are you suggesting we get rid of it? Or make it trun-based?
What you are describing is NOT mechanical inconsistency. Why should two different game parts, that take place in completely different time scales, have the same mechanic?
-
On 2/21/2019 at 5:25 PM, Dagar said:
I am with Chris here in the sense that I feel that X2 should not have the same air game as X1. As awesome as it was, it does not really fit into a turn-based tactical game, and I have read numerous accounts of people who disliked it because of how hard it was to get into.
That's like saying don't make games hard because people will complain.
And since when it does not fit? By what logic?
I don't know how to solve the issue with the air game, which is aggravated by the fact that I have not yet played the X2 version. But I encourage the Goldhawk team to take their time, orient on how real air combat in the Cold War period worked (and extraploate with cool SciFi abilities from there) and focus on tactical gameplay without any reaction component.
If the issue is repetition, then there is no solution other than autoresolve. Besides, if you're complaining about repetition, try doing 20 attacks on small UFO's. Everything can become repetitous easily. The thing with air combat is that there is no cover in air, no things to spice up the battlespace. Unless you fly low altitude.
I can think off a few things to spice things up, like 3D combat. DCS TacView style. Example:
TacView starts after 3 minutes
X2 Base Mechanics - Community Poll
in Xenonauts-2 General Discussion
Posted
Reading everything you wrote so far and honestly... I'm dissapointed.
I'm going to be perfectly honest here, so excuse some harsh criticism, but you DEFINITELY started building Xenonauts 2 by copying the Nu-Com, which is/was a terrible idea and a giant red flag for me, since that is a big departure from the original Xenonauts and original X-Com. And now because of that you're running into problems with the code and big chunks having to be re-written.
I realize companies want to earn money and you want the game to be "accessable" (corporate speak for so simplified everyone can play.. or in other words, dumbing down for the lowest common denominator, which Nu-Com was), so I guess people like me are a dying breed.
The second issue I have is you seem to think micromanagment is a bad things, when that is the core of the game. You're running a global operation. Bases, personnel, research. It's supposed to be a lot of micromanagment. You'll find plenty of old-school players that like that. But a lot of new "gamers" have no patience for it.
So you really need to decide who your target audience is.