[A few adjustments to starting weapons]

When it comes to human guns, balancing shouldn't be hard. You already know the averages for real work guns in terms of RoF. Assuming one "standard" attack is 1 second, you can easily extrapolate from there.

And we know modern assault rifles generally have 3 or 4-shot burts.

[Air Combat]

I liked the air combat in X1. Actually gave you something to do.

[Don't you know there is a war going on?]

Am I the only one who thinks geoscpae should be kinda cluttered?

I mean, showing the entire world during an alien invasion, it SHOULD look like all hell is breaking loose and you can barely keep track of anything.

[Don't you know there is a war going on?]

I don't see the "snowball" as a problem. It's a rational, logical outcome of simply being good and improving.

 

With that said, the more the rest of the world (NPC's) are involved, the better.

One nice thing might be to be able to invest (send some weapons or armor) to a country and slowly start seeing their troops gets more equipment.

So basically, you can hoard things for yourself, or you can spread the love, which makes you weaker in the short term, but buffs some of your allies long-term.

 

 

@Chris - regarding geospace. You could simplify it and have NPC air combat hidden/approximated, or you can actually show it on geoscape fully, or just as an icon (air combat over X). I guess the idea is that NPC nations/militaries would send fighters up, and inform you when they cannot intercept, and ask you to pitch in. So UFO's being intercepted by NPC would be marked differently on the map.

Also, I guess there could a plane limit on NPC bases and a limited reinforcement and cooldown rate, so they cannot just keep sending craft up. A size 10 airfield can hold 10 fighters, with 2 lost aircraft replaced per month, with a repair cooldown of a week (each fighter tracked independently? The whole base?). Basically, keeping the number of airfields and numbers to crunch low, not that it's difficult for modern PC's, but purely to keep the simulation simple.

Airfields and friendly bases could be destroyed, in which case the NPC military would try to re-build them over time, starting with a smaller base that might grow each month, depending on how good/bad the nation is doing.

[A question]

It's fine if it's not what I want, as long as I can somehow tweak it to come close. Thus the game being moddable is a pretty important thing. the less hardcoded, the better.

 

That said, I'm happy you are keeping all of this in mind. Variety is the slice of life, but if it's cosmetic or formulaic, it drains half the enjoyment out of it.

[A question]

Since I'm not in the beta (regretting it now) and I want to know.

 

Is the weapon upgrade system still completely linear and uninspired? (standard guns -> lasers -> plasma, all just increased damage and no real differences) This is what I hated the most about Xenonauts, since different weapon are just re-skins. 

Or will it finally be more involved and varied? For example:

Ballistics and energy weapons have different tiers and types and upgrades, and different pros and cons - lasers might be very accurate, but have issues with armor or overheating. Or different damage depending on range and weather (as they should), laser diffusion and difraction are known phenomena. Loosing power over distance would be even more pronounced for plasma weapons

Ballistic weapons might have upgrades and various ammo types that increase their damage output and versatiltiy even later in the game.

So basically

Tier1 ballistic (normal guns) -> Tier2 (upgraded modern guns) -> Tier3 (ammo upgrades) -> Tier 4 (coilguns/railguns)

Tier 1 energy (lasers) -> Tier 2 (plasma) -> Tier3 (pulse lasers) -> Tier 4 (exotic particles? plasma improvements)

And it goes without the saying that every weapon type would NOT be a copy-paste. No plasma snipers. No laser shotguns. Differences in weapon that are mechanical and tactical, not just visual.

 

 

OH, before I forget - for mod support, do you plan to make  it possible to restrict/allow weapons based on crietera, like strength or power armor (as in, some weapons that can ONLY be used in power armor or that CANNOT be used in power armor)

[Cover and accuracy poll]

JA2 is a stellar game. The king IMHO.

TFD was OK. Apocalypse was a breath of fresh air. Everything else was trash.

[Cover and accuracy poll]

2 hours ago, Chris said:

It all comes back to the fundamental truth that for this system to work, the player must have complete confidence in the developer - that the game is totally free of bugs and accurately models every variable as it works in real life.

This is not accurate.There is no such thing as totally free of bugs and the simulation doesn't have to be 100% accurate - rather it has to be a convincing simulation. You don't have to take into account things like wind speed or falloff (I guess you can already file that under "less accurate at longer range"), but the basic concept of stability of the shooting platform, cone of fire and surface area to hit (and obstructions)

And I have to have confidence in the developer to trust your displayed % too.

 

2 hours ago, Chris said:

The optimal system for this sort of thing really would be a sort of real-world Valkyria Chronicles game, with weapons just having a possible hit circle and the player getting a first-person view as the unit takes a shot. That way you can see if the unit has missed the shot by aiming off-target, or if they aimed on-target and the shot hit cover, or recoil messed up the rest of the burst, etc. You'd need to design it from the ground up if it were to have any chance of success.

It's extremely difficult for a new player to learn how to play a game that doesn't give you hit %s. I play a lot of strategy games and I struggled to get into Jagged Alliance, mostly because I knew all the things that would improve shot accuracy but didn't know which the game considered to be most important, so it was difficult to figure out what I should have done differently when my guys missed a shot (that and not completely trusting the game, as I mentioned above).

 

Jagged Alliance has shot accuracy IIRC.

 

The optimal system for this sort of thing really would be a sort of real-world Valkyria Chronicles game, with weapons just having a possible hit circle and the player getting a first-person view as the unit takes a shot. That way you can see if the unit has missed the shot by aiming off-target, or if they aimed on-target and the shot hit cover, or recoil messed up the rest of the burst, etc. You'd need to design it from the ground up if it were to have any chance of success.

That's not a bad system either.

One way to do it could be to check how much of the enemy is visible/hittable (hitting an enemy in the open, one who has 10% of body sticking out of cover and one who has 50% body sticking out of cover) and add to that the gun/shooter accuracy.

At the end of the day, accuracy is always displayed as a chance. You can get unlucky and miss 5 90% shots in a row. Is it a bug? A railed calculation? At the end you still don't know without a lot of testing.

 

 

1 hour ago, Sheepy said:

If you are confident in your creativity, don't waste your time on arguing why we should agree your ground-breaking creative visions.  Go ahead, actually work on it.  Chris's vision on kickstarter convinced me.  Aren't you confident in your ideas?

"Go ahead an make it yourself"

Stellar argument my man. Why indeed comment on anything or argue for anything when every single one of us could spend time building our own dream game?

Let me just get my 50 million out of my bank.

[Cover and accuracy poll]

On 09/04/2017 at 3:34 AM, Sheepy said:

But this is not a game that aims to simulate real life.  May I challenge you to name a game that plays like Xenonauts (turn based, grid based, tu or ap based, bullet sponge, low hit rate), that do 3d bullet tracing and hide shot percentage to good result?

It's not been done, therefore it cannot be and shouldn't be done? With arguments like that, creativity will surely reach new heights.

 

What you are arguing is the game (every game?) should get rid of abstraction by making things realistic (and fixing any immersion breaking bugs).  What I am saying is like how MMO always have health bars (even Eve), games like Xenonauts also have common features that better fit the narrative.  If you keep disregarding or sidesteping our points (by seeing the fallen leaves and not the forest), you are not making an argument, but an exercise in self-convincing.

And you think MMO's having health bars is a good thing? News flash - they didn't always. Some of the first one had a rough description (Healthy, slightly injured, Injured, Badly Injured, Near Death) and they were better for it.

"Better fit the narrative" is nothing more than your personal taste, a taste that you developed by consuming a specific, same-y products. In other words, a habbit, that leads to thinking that system X is the only system that works.

Perhaps you should heed your own words.

 

Anyway.  There are many other games that pursuit realistic simulation if you look beyond this genre.  Arma have already been proposed in the translocator thread.  Squad is on free weekend on Steam. 

Don't confuse what is good for them as what is good for every game.

Right back at you.

[Cover and accuracy poll]

On 07/04/2017 at 0:32 PM, Ninothree said:

I think that data on the battle is an intrinsic part of the gameplay. There is a space for games without those interfaces (Black and White is a prime example) but the feel they give is far less about strategy which is at the core of xcom. As the commander, you can't guess that much based upon what a shot looks like from a top down view, or really know what cover elements are in the way - those are just graphical representations (which are less likely an issue for the AI). You need some kind of crutch to know what your decisions relate to in the game world. Obviously, more realistic cover seems better but I think an understandable set of game mechanics is more important in order for you to make well thought out decisions as opposed to going with gut instinct - the latter making for a decent enough combat simulator but not a strategy game.

Please, don't assume I want to remove all data. That's driving a point to absurdity.

But I could do with removing some if I get something better (a proper accuracy/ballistic model) in return. And you could guess much. A simple cone projection or a line from the gun barrel to the enemy, along with a rotating map, and there's no way you wouldn't have a good idea of how clean of a shot you have.

The idea that a strategy game requires 100% accurate and complete data is bogus. What is strategy by definition? Where is that definition is perfect knowledge?

Besides, you speak is if the player has no data at all - it's not gut feeling, but rather approximation from data you have.

[Cover and accuracy poll]

18 hours ago, desertoth said:

Logically then, we should never need statistics on weapons or armor, only verbose descriptions of capabilities. That would be fun. 

Well, weapon statistic is something you CAN get in real life. Things like caliber, muzzle velocity, ammo capacity, weight, etc..

[Cover and accuracy poll]

Wouldn't it be part of the basic game description/tutorials and something one can find out by observation and practice? "Realistic ballistic modeling" would be on the game cover.

So many old games didn't even have any tutorials or detailed explanations of mechanics. And they certainly didn't have numbers. You learned them by observing. Getting the "feel" is more important that having exact calculations and spreadsheets.

For example, do you really need to know the exact HP of the enemy, when you can know the approximate? Not only by observing the visual cues (bleeding, wounds) but also by simply having prior experience with the enemy (AHA..this one usually takes 4-5 bullets and I shot hims three times).

 

Just saying, any accuracy model worth anything will have increased accuracy from logical actions anyway (for example, getting closer; fireing from a more stable position; shooting at a static enemy) - the difference is that with realistic simulations those are more accurate rather than approximations.

 

It might be because there's some kind of bug in the game and there's literally no way you'll ever be able to hit that shot.

How does having a % solve that, given that that can be bugged too? A game can show you a wrong percentage (happened in NuCom).

Bug are something to fix, not something to be used as an argument against a system, given that ANY system can be bugged.

[Cover and accuracy poll]

The lowest common denominator?

 

Alas, we live in a world were you can sell garbage and convince people they need garbage. Powerful advertising and peer pressure, and people will purchase crap just because everyone else is doing it. And they will convince themselves it's not crap.

 

Note that ships do display their names, flags (alignments), and tons (level) out in the real life sea, so the labels at least is not a phenomena limited to games.  Radar screens in airports display even more, so the lack of overhead bars in real world is may be not because people don't prefer more information when they make plan.

Those are informations those veihilces transmit - give freely.

Normally, via radar you can only have limited information, like current speed and course. Aligment, name, tons? Not unless it's transmitted. Although you can say they have "names" as every contact that doesn't transmit it's ID is assigned a temporary one

[Cover and accuracy poll]

@Ninothree - it's a non-argument because it's can used to justify anything and nothing. Just like saying "it's fantasy!"

 

 

@Sheepy -

Quote

 

Enlighten me, please.  What is wrong with having accurate data or all the information on the board?  Chess, draughts, go, these real life games give accurate position of every pieces on the board.  Does a commander in the field play in turn?  Does soldiers in the field avert their glaze at ground further than 18 squares and never see the smoke from the crash site?  What makes shot accuracy so special in a

game that you feel compelled to single it out?

I single it out because generally one tackles one thing at a time. A thread about EVERYTHING would be incredibly non-specific and bloated.

A game needs rules and sometimes abstractions depending on complexity. Do I think view distance is necessary? No. I'd be fine with seeing from one end of the map to the other by day (without obstacles, of course). However, if ranges are compressed it makes sense to compress view distance - it also adds to the atmosphere and sense of danger. Also, a crash site doesn't have to be smoking.

But why do you think having such calculations is better? It certainly gives the player more information, but why is it better? Is more information always better? Is relaying more on your brain and common sense worse?

Take for example MMO's - you always see the name, alignment, level and HP of other NPC's and player. Why is that good? Wouldn't it be more interesting and exciting not having all the info served? Suddenly, you're not sure if that guy you see is a player or a NPC. You're not sure how strong he is, so you rely more on information gathering, observation and deduction, rather than just knowing everything. Suddenly, in a MMO you start acting more cautious and more "real". Suddenly, there's an extra layer of unknown and danger in every raid or fight. Suddenly, the only people who's names show up are people you actually talked to or have seen before.

[Cover and accuracy poll]

On 08/03/2017 at 6:45 PM, Pave said:

This kind of makes me wonder if we eventually have a "piercing"-attribute alongside the "Armour Penetration"-system that is going to be improved upon.
http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/index.php?/topic/14352-weapon-armour-penetration/

E.G. the shrubbery while could allow the bullet to pass-by, would also possibly change the trajectory depending on how "healthy" the shrubbery is.

Of course this could also mean that all the ammo-types would need to have different attributes too.
I already mention bullet-behaviour in case of shrubberies. But in case of "plasma" for example, that would cause it to burn until "killed". "MAG"-ammo-possibly could have the best piercing-capabilities, but otherwise wouldn't cause that-much-of-damage.

(( I am aware I am repeating a lot of things from other topics when it comes to damage-types, but I'd say it is worth to mention in "world-objects-vs-player-guns"-topic. ))

Cover penetration? Yes, a thousand times yes. Cover would have material type and thickness, which would determine how it reacts to damage.

Wood would be penetrated easily by bullets, and can burn and splinter. Metal would bend (melt when plasma'd). A bullet punching trough a wall cover would also loose speed and thus damage.

Plasma itself would be shit at penetrating cover, due to no density to speak off, but it would be great at destroying it (and due to splash damage, the sorounding too)

Hypervelocity weapons are an interesting question though - would cover act as whipple shielding? Interestingly enough, it might cause a shotgun-effect, as the hypervelocity bullet fragments https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipple_shield

 

[Cover and accuracy poll]

On 08/03/2017 at 0:20 PM, Sheepy said:

Again?  Well, since this is not a first person "strategy" game, I opt for fixed and reliable calculation.   Planning is the fun part for me, not throwing half the soldiers' actions against a fence with an unknown and unpredictable block %.

And what's wrong with not having 100% accurate data or all the information? When in life do you ever have them?

Use your own brain and judgment - even without the computer calculating it for you, you should have a rough estimate of how difficult it would be to hit someone based on cover and angle. Spatial reasoning is something a human brain does naturally.

Do you need an exact number? Does a commander in the field have those numbers? No. But you can judge comparatively (I'll have a better shot from point A then from point B, but C would probably be best - you can make those judgments without even knowing the exact value at any of those points).

And don't give me the BS "but it's a game" non-argument. Where does it say that you need those numbers because it's a game. You just got accustomed to having them, even though you don't need them.

[Hidden Movement Screen Unnecessary]

On 26/03/2017 at 4:57 PM, Fitness1500 said:

One of the things that the newer XCOM games did right (and by that I mean one of the VERY FEW things) is the sense that during the alien turn you are constantly watching the screen in case something happens. Even though you already know the screen will zoom to any movement in actuality, you still can't help but watch. It adds a sense of depth and immersion while you're waiting for the aliens to move instead of just turning off the screen and saying "Ok, now wait for your turn."

Thoughts?

Does it make ANY difference?

You still can't see what's happening and can't interact. Frankly I think the hidden movement screen hides more and thus creates more tension.

Alternatively, you can darken the whole screen, especially at the edges, to give a more opressive/ominous feeling.

[To promote the use of a variety of tech]

17 hours ago, Chris said:

The problem with that approach is that you only need one type of advanced weapons for the whole game, though - you find the type that most matches your preferred playstyle and then there's no reason to get the other ones because they're not actually upgrades, they're just different. That gives a very short tech tree and arguably it's even worse than the X1 system where the weapon types are straight upgrades you have to work through.

I think the idea in the OP has some merit in that it would make the different types of weapons useful without forcing such a linear tech tree on the player, and also it would make the aliens feel a bit more reactive.

Nope.

I never said there should be no tiers, nor resistances. Maybe you should read my posts in weapon upgrade thread?

Lasers tier 1, lasers tier 2, lasers tier 3 - continous or pulse? X-ray laser? UV laser?

Ballistics tier 1, ballisitics tier 2, ballistics tier 3 - improved rifles, more efficient gunpowder, caseless ammo, rail/coil tech (???), advanced munitions (AP, incendiery, FMJ, tracer, etc..), etc..

Plasma tier 1, plasma tier 2, plasma tier3 - improvements in cooling and weight mostly.

Given that each weapon type would have strengths and weaknesses, that in itself would be an incentive to mix weapons.

* * *

Lasers - long range, superbly accurate, damage falloff with range (defraction/diffusion)

Standard ballistics - reliable, highest RoF, different ammo types

Coil/rail weapons - high armor penetration, lower RoF, overpenetrates soft targets, no advanced munitions

Plasma - massive damage, short range, low RoF, unwieldy, splash damage

You can play around and have differences not only between weapon types, but also tiers, which makes even a lower tier weapon useful sometimes. For example, pulse laser vs. continuous laser - continuous is a beam that you can sweep over an enemy or an area, making it impossible to miss (unless the enemy is in cover), but damage is lower and depends on hitting the same spot, which is difficult. Thus instead (or in addition to) of accuracy determining if you hit or miss, it instead determines the % of damage (from the weapons maximum) you do. Pulse lasers (think 40K lasgun) function more like normal rifles, so its' easier to miss ,but each pulse delivers more energy on target.

Even after you research coilguns/railgun, advanced "regular" kinetics would still be usable - heck , I see them as separate weapon branches, not tiers. This works even better, as you have 2 weapon categories with 2 different weapons in each category and 2 defense categories (thermal/kinetic)

Because the capacitors need to be charged and high energy requirements, coilguns can't compete in terms of rate of fire, especially for heavy weaponry (power armor + minigun, which IMHO, should be the most potent standard human weapon), nor can they use various ammo types, but coilguns/railgun are more accurate and have insane penetration. Heck, railgun and coilgun can easily be different tiers (I see coilguns as superior to railguns)

 

In fact, instead of researching the entire FAMILY of weapons, I'd rather research them individually, with each research weapon reducing the cost of the next one (laser rifle, laser pistol, laser sniper are different researches). It might also prevent the "fakeness" of each weapon type having all weapon categories (pistol, rifle, shotgun, sniper, heavy), even when it should totally suck in it - like a plasma sniper or a laser shotgun

* * *

Straight upgrades are BORING AS HELL - I'd rather have no upgrades at all (and indeed, I remember playing fantasy games that subverted the typical weapon hunt by having you stick with just 2-3 basic weapons trough the game. I liked it far more than I thought I would.)

Besides, what's wrong with fighting with mostly your preferred weapon? What if I don't like plasma weapons at all - both in visual design and conceptually? I HAVE to use them

[To promote the use of a variety of tech]

Strictly technically speaking, laser and plasma are both heat-based (direct energy transfer), so armor that is good against one would also work against the other.

Rather than rock-paper-scissors play, simply have the weapons with pros (lasers have accuracy, plasma has damage) and cons (lasers have low damage, plasma has short range and long cooling sycle)

[The "secret war" idea]

You can write whatever you want Chris, but I (and the rest of the player/fans) can only draw conclusions based on information that is available to us.

The premise, as it currently stands is:

1) Aliens can't take on the combined human armies - this puts a limit to their technologies. If they can hide themselves from our radars, can easily infiltrate our ranks and posses travel, defense and offense capabilites far above us, then the first premise fails.

 

2) How good they are at disguises, I can't really tell. You can say "it's magic" and it would be an explanation. But there has to be a limit. At the first hint of infiltration, any sane government would initiate strict tests to important personnel (blood samples, DNA tests), which is why the changeling/plastic surgery concept of iniltration never sat well with me. They are alien and their body language and biological processes will be different, there WILL be tells. It makes far more sense to simply have human traitors that willingly work for the aliens (for personal gain or ideological reasons). It might add a bit more suspense, as you could even have traitors in some missions - for example, local military force turns against you suddenly.

 

As for the "a dozen soldiers and three or four jet planes stop the entire might of an interstellar alien civilisation" - it's only like that if you make it like that. If xenonauts are not the entire spear, but the tip of the spear, then it's not just a dozen soldiers? If it's made clear that the rest of the world is not sitting idly, then there is no problem. Everyone is fighting - you're basically Special Forces, leading the way.

If it's not the entire alien interstellar civilization, but a rag-tag remnant? A tiny scout fleet? Tiny changes can have big effects.

[The "secret war" idea]

I'm using what is known about X2 so far and logic/common sense.

IF you think I made a mistake, point it out.

[The "secret war" idea]

On 17/03/2017 at 3:28 PM, Chris said:

It's a bold claim to say that the aliens would have a hard time infiltrating anything, especially given the first game has aliens that can literally mind control your soldiers. Outdated radar equipment has a difficult time tracking modern stealth aircraft, so why is it beyond the realms of possibility that local forces might not be able to detect highly advanced UFOs?

1) They're not human, so they stand out. And there's a big limit on mind control - both range, LOS and how long you can keep it up. I can see local traitors/fanatics/cultists working for the aliens, but they would be limited in number and can't infiltrate everything.

2) Don't Xenonauts are using local terrestrial radar stations to track UFO's? And if UFO's are not detectable by our equipment, then the aliens can bomb our infrastructure, cities and places of power with impunity.

 

[The "secret war" idea]

7 hours ago, tachikaze said:

This isn't a classical X-com game.
 

During the "shadow war" stage, "terror" missions (or chaos missions) would be mostly infiltration and sabotage - attack on intelligence and security institutions, false-flags with mind controlled humans, deployment of technology such as dedicated gateways, construction crawlers or psionic transmitters which will make future alien efforts on Earth easier.

Once the all-out invasion begins, terror missions become far more visible and direct like X1 terror missions.

Yeah, this might work well

[The "secret war" idea]

Given that Xenonauts do have alien corpses and equipment to study, then any government that finances them would have it also.

You would have a LOT more than "grainy pictures", so the only way I can see it possible would be if the governments themselves are actively trying to keep it under wraps - but even then they can only keep it up for so long. Not to mention, why would they want to? If aliens are trying to invade and undermine you in secret, exposing them would be the best and fastest way to ruin their plans.

The third point is alien infiltration - paranoia at the time of the Cold War was high, meaning the aliens would have a damn hard job at infiltrating anything. If the government was saying "the alien did this" and some media heads were constantly trying to downplay it, something tells me the government would be on their asses in microseconds.

 

21 hours ago, Ninothree said:

As for sightings of UFOs in the sky, there are tinfoil-hat-wearing crackpots out there right now who claim to have seen them. Though I think if the aliens had the capability to brainwash humans to do their misinformation/infiltration then the story would hold together a lot tighter.

I think it might be a bit different when many of your military personal see an record them, your radar stations track them and your fighters exchange fire with them.

[The "secret war" idea]

The  "secret war" doesn't seem to work in the context of a classical X-com game.

 

If the aliens do use UFO's then they can't keep their operations secret, as UFOs can and will be tracked. Even with the translocator idea, any attack by the aliens will make them known - there will be survivors and physical and video evidence left behind. So if the aliens want secrecy, you can kiss terror attacks (and most classical missions) goodbye.

And who is financing the Xenonauts? If it's the world powers, then they would know about the aliens from day 1, and would thus avoid tension, making the entire point moot. I don't see an organization like Xenonauts/XCOM being created at all unless the secret war phase is already over.

So how do you make this work without removing air battles and UFO's, and terror attacks - staples of the genre?

I mean, you CAN make it work (X-Com FPS anyone?), but the game will be so much different from the classical X-Com that all the appeal is lost to me.