Jump to content

StellarRat

Members
  • Posts

    4,465
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by StellarRat

  1. You neglected the the choice:  When it's ready.

    No software company should release a product with lots of bugs or game mechanics/balance issues.  I've seen this happen before and it's bad.  Once the game comes out it will get immediate published reviews before there is even a chance for patches that might solve all the problems.  If it has problems that will cost a lot of sales and more often than not there is no second chance at the reviews.  They rarely re-review things and if they do they don't make it a high visibility article.  Usually is a passing note or addition to the first review.

    Sim City 5 and Sword of the Stars II come to mind.

      

     

  2. On 11/2/2020 at 8:23 AM, Chris said:

    Yeah, that's not how they're meant to behave - a few aliens are meant to be aggressive but in general they're meant to wait for you to come to them. It's happening because the combat AI isn't really implemented properly yet, but we should have a way to make certain aliens more passive even at this stage. I'll have a chat with the coders about it and see if we can update it for V15.

    Ideally, some aliens will block (say under cover and wait for targets) while others will try to sneak around your flanks.

  3. The squad vision accuracy penalty as described by Puciek above does make a lot of sense to me.  If you can't actually see the target even if someone is pointing it out to you then spray and pray is the best you can hope for.  Only the sniper rifle, grenades/HE weapons, and assault/machineguns should get a reduction/avoid this penalty.  That said, the penalty should apply to the aliens as well.

  4. I'd pay the extra $10 to do some beta playing/testing.   One of the previous posters said he didn't think beta testers had much of a voice.   I don't believe that is true with Goldhawk.  I know that a couple of my ideas made into X1.   I know that you take thoughtful suggestions seriously i.e.  something that is not just ranting.  :-)

  5. On 4/21/2018 at 8:16 AM, DaReaperZ said:

    The bad:

    - Shotgun is still quite bad, it's useful inside buildings, but that's the extent of it. As someone else said above, the SMG is a better choice at every junction except perhaps point blank range and even then...

     

    I've advocated for either increased shotgun damage, an SMG, or a machine pistol since the first Xenonauts.  That said, the shotgun should be great inside buildings and devastating at really close range.   00 shot from a shotgun has the same hitting power as a 9mm round and a single shotgun shell holds nine of them.  So, going strictly by "reality" it should be like unloading an entire pistol at the target instantly.   The other two weapons are basically just fully automatic pistols with the SMG having the advantage of being easier to control and having a larger clip.   The machine pistol does have the advantage of being a one handed weapon, but would nearly useless at anything beyond very short range.

    • Like 1
  6. I think before anyone assumes the AI "won't even challenge a moderately skilled human" we should see how it turns out.  If I remember correctly many of the things that were possible/planned to do with the AI weren't implemented in Xenonauts 1 because they ran out of time to do them.  I'm going to assume that Jjis-Jan (probably spelled wrong) is going to be able to put more "brains" into it this time around.  He had all the ideas and solutions in planning before, so this time it would seem he'd be able to implement more of them.

  7. On 1/11/2018 at 5:54 AM, Chris said:

    Both those things sound like you're asking for proximity grenades ... in which case, yes, we're planning to put them in the game.

    I actually meant proximity grenades and a motion detector or some other device that allows you to detect hidden units even if it's just a camera that can look around corners or under doors.  Sorry I wasn't really clear on that.   A recon drone would be really cool!  I also really hope we'll get some more chemical or bio weapons other than just stun gas and smoke.   Fire weapons didn't make it into the last game, <hint, hint> :D.   Of course, that assumes that the alien AI is smart not to just sit in one place and just die and also that the will aliens have similar capabilities or at least defenses against them.  One could argue that the Reaper is a bio weapons I suppose.

  8. I like what I'm hearing in this thread about the expanded strategy side of the game vs. X1.

    I'm not sure I'm onboard with just having one alien and a bunch of humans minions to fight on the average mission.   I'd prefer one boss alien and a bunch of minion aliens (aka low power red shirts) OR at least humans that have been mind controlled or something similar (brain implants inserted, etc...) and are totally under alien control.  They should look somewhat alien like at a minimum and probably have some unique abilities / vulnerabilities vs. a regular human.

    I do agree that the current "picture" I have of the game as a war in the shadows is appealing.   I agree with the poster that thinks intelligence gathering should be an important aspect of the game.   I believe you should have base additions (hardware) and research to improve intel gathering as well as missions and personnel that can also improve your intel.  In fact, one mission objective could be seizing aliens or minions to learn about where the next alien "attack" or whatever will be focused.  Another could be stealing access codes that allow you tap into national intel resources.  Another could be cracking alien transmission codes by stealing a key or device from the aliens, etc... You could even have missions where NOT shooting or being detected is a critical factor like sneaking into a place to copy some type of plans, tap a comm line,  download data, etc...  I very much would like more variety in mission types than X1 had and this plays right into that.

    Having good intel should lead to some type of advantage.  Perhaps having your operatives arrive BEFORE the aliens and ambushing them in ground combat or intercepting them in transit to their objective.   That would be most satisfying!

  9. 9 hours ago, Chris said:

    Hmm, yeah, that's potentially not too far off the sort of thing that we want - although a 25mm grenade is getting pretty small. I suppose we could always make it an early-game research project too, that way we can frame it as being a new type of weapon rather than an existing one and explain it on our terms (in which case it could indeed be the Heavy Launcher as Shoes suggests). 

    Yeah, an early research project would be OK.  That system in in the wiki is actually quite deadly because it uses proximity fused mini-grenades, so you shoot over enemy cover and the grenade detonates above or behind the target.  It basically negates anything but a pillbox or covered foxhole as cover.  Even buildings aren't safe because it can be set to fire through any window or opening and blowup inside.  But you are right about the small size, it wouldn't destroy much cover.  However, it would be a great stun gas, mine, or poison gas delivery system and it could still destroy cover fairly quickly because it can fire MANY explosive rounds quickly and that adds up.  The rate of fire is important.  I'm guessing, but I imagine a direct hit from a 25 mm explosive round would probably blow a two or three foot hole in a brick wall.  I imagine some alien upgrades would also up the explosive power of the weapon eventually.

  10. 1 hour ago, Chris said:

    Yeah, but people won't like a multi-shot rocket launcher (or one that does relatively little damage) either. Unfortunately, I'm not aware of any real weapon that fills the intended battlefield niche.

    I think I found a real life equivalent of roughly what you want: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/XM25_CDTE

    My other thought is you don't have to give it a name that means anything specific.   You could just call it the XA40 or some other designation that means nothing specific other than a model number.  That way people won't expect it to act in some specific manner.  You can simply describe what it does and how to use it.  That way YOU set the users' expectations instead of the other way around.

  11. 14 hours ago, Sheepy said:

    A problem with recoilless rifle is that they are universally single-shot, not to mention that they seem to fire much bigger shells.

    True, but there are smaller ones that can be handled by one person and reloaded fairly quickly like the M18 57mm.  I'm not sure what the best approach would be.  I just don't like a grenade launcher that can't fire over something.

  12. 19 hours ago, Max_Caine said:

    If memory serves correctly from previous discussions, the grenade launcher has always been intended as a direct fire weapon. I can understand why - you may as well call the grenade launcher an unguided blaster bomb launcher and be done with it if it were authentically represented, but I believe this decision is going to draw considerable ire. I personally believe the grenade launcher should be replaced with something more suitable. A recoilless rifle would, I believe, be very suitable in terms of era, gameplay and authenticity  as a successor to the rocket launcher.

    I agree with Max on this.  If the grenade launcher can't be used to shoot over objects you should name it something else.  Recoilless rifle is good or just go back to rocket launcher.

    Personally, I see no reason why you can't just allow it to function as a real grenade launcher.  You have hand grenades that can be tossed over objects and so the grenade launcher should work exactly same way except have much longer range and horrible accuracy in indirect mode.  I'd just throw in a large accuracy penalty when trying to fire one over anything, mostly on range axis i.e. it tends to land short or long.  It shouldn't be too hard as you already have Line of Sight mechanics in the game.  That would discourage people from using them as "artillery" since the ammo supply is limited and in close combat you're likely to hit your own troops.  I'm assuming the average solider could probably only carry 4 to 8 additional rounds of ammo for the grenade launcher.

    In real life, someone has to estimate the range accurately when they are used in indirect mode and a base plate is often employed that effectively turns them into little mortars.  Without the base plate you probably won't hit anything with the first round and at worst you'll waste a lot of shots trying to find the range.  You'd also need an observer if the target is not visible to the shooter.  Hitting a moving target would be nearly impossible.

    Your explosion mechanics ideas sound awesome by the way.  I'm all in favor of those.

     

  13. Speaking of grenades:  Will we get different types of payloads?  I hope you are going to give us incendiary, smoke, HE and knock out gas at a minimum.  Ideally, some type of area denial (like the old proximity grenade) and lethal gas would be awesome.  If you're going to have mechanical units again an EMP or shock grenade would be good too.   I'm hoping the grenade launcher and hand grenades will have the same exact types available.

  14. 8 hours ago, Chris said:

    At the moment they're just being placed in little "stacks", which isn't how they'll be used in the next set of maps - not only does it look a bit weird, it doesn't "wall off" sections of the map by blocking LOS to a large area etc (one of the reasons why the maps are a bit boring to play atm). They should be used more as cliffs and ridges in the next set of maps, hopefully that'll address some of the problems even without graphical updates.

    Are there going to be some "rounded off" tiles (corner and edge pieces) to get rid of the right angles on the cliffs and large boulders?  I don't know if that causes programming issues, but it would go a long way to making the stones look more natural.  The small boulders you use now look fine.

  15. 17 hours ago, thixotrop said:

    Sometimes they do:

    Stone Forrest China

    Stones in the Forrest

    More stones in the Forrest

    But I am still for a better integration, it looks too blocky, though not exactly ugly.

    I agree that there can be large stones in the woods.  Having lived in Alaska in a glacial valley we had enormous boulders all over the woods.  There was one right beside our house that you can use to get on the roof and was easily larger than two cars stacked on top of each other.  The problem is that the stones in the game look like the sides of a stone house or a human built stone wall.  Squared off and appearing to be made of dozens of smaller stones.  Most the stones I saw were single boulders and were smooth and grey and oddly shaped.

×
×
  • Create New...