Shoes

As you said, player feedback is a scarce commodity. Have you considered asking players for specific feedback? If the Inventory issues aren't sorted by mid-November, you could always ask players to focus feedback in other areas, or provide a list of known issues for them not to duplicate reports.

£100 is worth about how much dev time? While I think adding strings to the game via news ticker, reports, background etc is worth a reward tier, I don't feel like I would pay that much money to add a few sentences to the game. If £100 is not worth a lot of dev time, then maybe coding the infrastructure to display those strings is really all that can be done. I still think cosmetics, either through "hats" or decals for vehicles/guns, would be more exciting.

A game like Starbound had players pick (design?) art for hats. I don't know to what end there will be soldier customization in X-2, but perhaps the backers could choose/design/provide input for some wearables. When the soldier named (or renamed to) Mr. Backer spawns, they also spawn with a silly hat, or super cool sunglasses, of their choosing. They may not have their portrait done, but they have a custom avatar, to an extent. I imagine opening the door to that sort of customization will make modders happy too.

I think your links are messed up in your first paragraphs. The first link leads to the " Xenonauts-2 April & Kickstarter Update " thread, while the second thread is dead.

I hope this will be a non-issue, especially when you make the distinction between Closed Beta and Early Access. Long ago, you had hoped to have more reward tiers that weren't very art-dependent; are you still looking for more tiers, or are you happy with what you have?

Xcom meets Dynasty Warriors?

I think the TU system in place already abstracts some of the ideas presented. Burst firing would represent shooting multiple times for an aim bonus, while snap firing twice would be more like "shoot one, take time to make a decision, shoot again". I like the idea of stationary buffs. I feel like JA2 did something like that; if you did not use all your TUs, some carried over to the next turn. I wonder if focus buffs would make the game strategy narrower... everyone will focus on the breach door, and both sides will incur heavy losses. I think the variety could be fun though.

Pardon if this has been said before, but it sounds like you want to tie laser damage to accuracy. I think that would be a really neat way to make the weapon tier feel distinct from others. Higher accuracy means the beam is landed on the alien for longer, dealing more damage. This could be communicated to the player by a "Time to Kill" calculation. If the door is opened to soldier stats boosting weapon damage, some weapons could deal damage based on strength/ability to counter recoil. I am not sure what other stats could benefit combat like that though...

Massive Chalice had a neat Trait system, where squad members could influence impressionable youth, and where an elected "Standard" conferred his traits onto the military. It was a core mechanic of the game, so I don't think Xenonauts can make a deep system of it at this point. However, depending if soldiers are organized by squads, a squad leader could be appointed for this very purpose. Maybe the leader only affects the mission (appointing a scientist as leader means looting more tech, an engineer means looting more materials, etc), or maybe they affect the soldier on an individual level (appointing a brave soldier as leader means other soldiers become brave, for the mission or for the duration of the game). This starts to conflict with the Xcom trope of dispensable soldiers, however...

I wasn't fond of your ideas on laser weapons, but I find the idea of cover being extra effective against laser weapons very interesting. 100% hit change, but it's reduced by cover. Even if you field explosives, the smoke they could create would dissipate the beam and make it just as useless. It will really promote flanking plays or creative object destruction. I think it's novel, to say the least.

I didn't google this for very long, but I didn't find any sources for this. The wiki doesn't mention anything of that sort. The tone of your posts are very "JA2 is the best game in the world, and I deserve to have you make me another JA2".

@Xeryx, careful about calling arguments nonsensical, as we're discussing the effects of RL ammunition on entirely fictional beings. For all we know, these aliens don't have solid bodies, and so any sort of ballistic would be useless!

While we're on the topic of Geoscape, will there be any "council mission"-esq prompts? I imagine the answer is yes, given you wanted to do more than just UFOs all the time. I bring this up, because the games Massive Chalice and FTL have both done a simple pop-up no-battle events. In FTL, the results of choices were the same across games, and I think Massive Chalice has a % associated to each choice (75% of the time, choice A for event 1 was good, and 25% it was null). Massive Chalice also gave funny options, like "Dip the child in the chalice?". I could imagine an event like this: "A smaller than usual alien was found aboard the ship. It's a child! What should we do? A: Terminate, B: Study, C: Hold for ransom". Look at how funny that last option is! Oh my. Maybe option A results in a morale change to the soldiers, some up, some down. Maybe option B results in an interesting lore tidbit about how cloning among the aliens might not be unanimously supported. Maybe option C could be 50/50: the next terror mission is skipped, or it triggers a terror mission. These pop-up events could provide side-plots to conclude, or just add a bit of change to the normal order of how the game is played. Designing a string of side quests could also be a Kickstarter reward.

OpenXcom has that. I never really played with it much. However, a minigame could be made out of it: a series of static maps that are meant to challenge the player. As you progress, maps get harder. Have some stats (shared globally?) about how many turns it took, casualties, etc. Stretches of maps could be themed, like pistols only or grenades only. A Kickstarter tier could be to design one of these maps for the game. Worms Armageddon's SP was pretty much this: a set of challenges for each weapon, and then a series of battles that get harder and harder. It added a lot of longevity to the game for me.

I will point out that, in order to bugfix the game, devs need to be able to reproduce conditions that caused the bug; a saved game would save tons of dev time. I will also say that the goal is to create a fun game, and fairness/predictability/realism all contribute to that, but to a limit. Having the Geoscape time pass at a 1:1 scale compared to real life would be realistic. Waiting literal hours for your radar to pick up a UFO is realistic. But it's not fun... unless you're really into that, which I am willing to bet some people are! There are two games that come to mind that I wonder if you've tried: the first is Frozen Synapse; it is as predictable as it gets. There's no "50% chance to hit", but instead it's "0.5 seconds to kill". Due to the deterministic nature of the combat, you're encouraged to simulate scenarios while you're planning to really tighten your tactics. Take a look, any gameplay video should convey what I mean pretty quickly. The other is Achron, which would be the opposite of what you want; it's a meta-RTS game. You can rewind events and try them again, so save-scumming is built in. You are literally achronal, and able to manipulate time. However, so can your opponent.

I didn't read over your whole post, so I hope I didn't miss arguments or justifications. You seem passionate about this, so I hope I don't appear dismissive. It seems to crux of the argument is to have fair, realistic and predictable gameplay, achieved in part by not have the ability to save. But who doesn't want fair, realistic and predictable gameplay? I think the devs tried to achieve that in Xenonauts 1, and will try to get it in 2 as well. I appreciate the idea that a player that is unable to save will only like the game if it is flawless (otherwise, bugs will ruin the experience), but again the devs are already aiming for a flawless experience. Not being able to save is only going to exacerbate any problems the devs were unable to fix, not to mention alienate players who can't play nonstop, as Drakon has covered.

@Ninothree In your terraformation idea, a game loss could poke at the fourth wall and explain that the aliens now begin to terraform the planet and are responsible for our/2018's climate issues we are facing. A little cheeky!

@Drakon I like the thought put into your ideas. I would like to think that, even if a billion+ aliens were coming to Earth, if they were rational, they wouldn't start with violence. I could be convinced that 4000+ years of travel, forced by the nuclear destruction of ones planet, might radicalize the colonists. Generations were indoctrinated to believe that nuclear power is bad, and those who wield it are bad. Thus arriving at Earth with "no other option" but to save the Earth from the humans. I think most of these alien invader games have a hard time answering the question "why are they shooting first, and asking questions later?".

Using Alenium cells like this sounds super cool. It's a bit like a slot system, but it fits well with the lore. It also gives marked progression to the player; hard starter missions should be significantly easier with a few Alenium cells. The research tying into it I think will promote replayability. Game 1 I could research offensive uses for Alenium, Game 2 could be defensive. Game 3 three I don't use them at all. I think this subsystem can be made into a very important, flexible part of the game. For example, here's one take: having an Alenium cell in battle is a leap in power akin to having a super soldier in battle. Losing a cell would be devastating, but unlike soldiers, you don't really have more on standby. Instead of the number of cells being a limiting factor, the "charging station" back at the base could be the limiting factor. You need an alien charger to keep the cells topped off for battle; they lose power otherwise, as a sort of safety feature (or whatever other reason). Raiding bases and big UFOs might yield charging stations, and gives incentive and unique loot to these raids. The fact that the cells need to be charged after use would force the player to carefully choose when to deploy the cells. Not every mission will run all the cells, but you bet that base raid will. And it will be nuts. The cooldown also makes it so the first Alenium cell doesn't suddenly, eternally make the game easier. Heck, maybe these charging stations are a dime a dozen, but the charge time for the cells is a matter of weeks. Maybe certain techs drain the cells more, and so you can run a laser weapon every battle, but only your exo-battle armor once a week. Whatever the implementation is, I like the idea of allowing game-breaking tech in the game, at a cost.

I can get behind that. While the soldier can still shoot at an empty tile, it would require effort on the part of the player to remember where that alien was. If the UI can manage it in a pretty way, I think it would be beneficial.

I always interpreted the kind of shot was simply how much time the soldier spent readying their weapon. A snap shot is as described: the soldier snaps to the target and fires, spending little time aiming. Nothing is stopping the soldier from taking their time in making the shot, except for maybe feeling silly that they're trying so hard to hit something they can't see.

The original Xcom had it, and it didn't do much. I mean, maybe it did? But it did not factor into any of my tactics. XCOM2012 had that red fog mode, where an injured unit would be less accurate. Adding more detail won't net much of a benefit. It might be made more interesting if the consequences were permanent. A soldier who takes heavy or more damage to a limb loses some stats permanently, but other stats like bravery or perhaps gained perks are never lost. So maybe their stats don't end up being superb, their field experience makes them valuable. It might still be a moot point if the game is still heavy on the one-hit-kills.

Given the shadow war approach the game seems to be taking, the local forces could be made hostile too. There is a possibility of stealth/non-lethal gameplay, and that could be expanded to local forces as well. Fighting aliens and their henchmen with lethal force, but carrying stun weapons in case the local forces attempt to engage you and the aliens. There was also talk about intelligence gathering being a requirement to missions, and that could be used to tag local forces are enemies or not, and maybe even allies. That way, if acting on weak intel, you might be required to investigate to see if the a unit is a local force or an alien force before killing/subduing. If acting on strong intel, maybe you are able to arrive dressed in their uniforms or something and fool the local forces to work with you. Time will tell!

I like the idea of a dedicated "room" for soldiers to perform daytime jobs, such as working out. I think it would fit that a soldier becomes stronger through training, and that's how you get a high TU, high STR soldier. Things like bravery would be earned on the battlefield. This way your soldiers organically become more combat capable because their dayjob is exactly that.

@Conductiv I think you and Chris are saying a lot of the same stuff. In a tactical battle, a soldier unit would be good at combat, and a science unit would be good at some other thing. If a battle needs fighting, you would want soldier units; if a battle needs some other thing, you would want science units. And sometimes, if you're in a pickle, then your science unit might have to do some combat, or your soldier unit my have to do some other thing.