Sinfullyvannila

They are talking about profits from sales, not number of games sold.

They fixed the teleport bug(happened to me like once in 100 hours), and cheap alien bonuses is par for the course as far as X-Com in general goes.

double post

It's hardly the sole survivor of the genre. It's simply the newest and most marketed. Well, the financial system is awful and the biggest reason I don't play it anymore(it makes the game too tedious and keeps me from what I enjoy about it), so I stand by what I said.

You probably are just dismissing the people who praise the new game, and see minor complaints as abject condemnation. I see that in the "old guard" camps of any popular game. As for the second point, I'm going to call you the pot, because you have championed some truly awful aspects of the old games.

Not really. I feel no need to defend the game. This is literally the only site where the people who complain about EU isn't in the vast minority. It's more to paint both games in a realistic light, and sometimes to manage expectations. The people in this "I hate EU club" seem to think UD is flawless(and unmatched in the genre lol) and that every change in EU is horrible. That's just not the case. I'm fully capable of determining good from bad. EU is not without flaws or relative weaknesses. It has some bad bugs and it KB/M scheme sucks. It sucks that everything is scripted in the Geoscape and you can't seek out supply bases and such. The game isn't perfect, but it's still definitely excellent.

I either think those things were poorly implemented in the original(total inventory control, war profiteering), or thought that certain things in the original would have made this version of XCOM worse(Free Fire, ability to loot the dead). I prefer the class system, because it was annoying and tedious to control how your soldiers improved in the original. This is what I'm confused about, because this is clearly what UFO ET:G is. It's a strictly better version of UD in pretty much every sense. If you were disappointed in ET:G, I can pretty much assure you that you will be disappointed in XN because of your attitude.

It was a response to the threads he linked on a post that followed mine.

Those games didn't come out 20 years ago. I'm not going to argue which have more replay value, I'm just saying, $50 for 100+ hours in the course of a couple months without burning out on it to the point of never wanting to play it is money well spent. And the original X-Com had a comparable amount of bugs. I beat both UD and TFTD ages ago and they never compelled me to play through them again. I'll play them for about 10-20 hours now and then until it gets to the point in the game where it slows to a crawl due to micromanagement and becomes unpleasant. I read both of the posts. I don't agree with them as a whole, and only agree with a couple of negatives from the one that lists a ton of negatives. I even thought most of them were positive changes(no free-fire, limited explosives, inability to pick up gear from dead soldiers, class system, no longer being able to sell manufactured weapons, smaller teams). I've had this discussion before, and don't see the point of revisiting it. Sorry you didn't like the game. You are in the minority, hope Xenonauts works out for you. If it doesn't, I highly recommend UFO Extraterrestrials: Gold.

I got over 100 hours out of it, and have been thinking about playing through it again, so $50 was definitely a fair price.

My expectations were exceeded. It's a great game and a great XCOM.

You only really needed to build extra Bases past Radar/Hangar bases in UD one on impossible, since you needed to build extra hangars in your main base so that you soldiers spawns don't get overwritten by the enemy. And you really don't need to build any labs or workshops in UD, either.

It would be really easy to teach the pros/cons if you just put a line on the AA's description saying something like "unfortunately, the drawback is that batteries are a little TOO effective, in that they obliterate the target, making it impossible to salvage valuable artifacts from the crash site". Or you could just make them extremely expensive. Or both. And why is it so important whether or not the defense is the "right" choice? As long as both choices have viable pros and cons, the choice is the reward in itself. That's the point, to make it so that there isn't a blatantly right or wrong decisions, so that the decisions themselves are interesting. And like someone said before, base defenses were in the original, my suggestions doesn't add a new choice, it tweaks the old one so that it's viable(which Base Defenses aren't in the original). Personally, I wouldn't be overly frustrated at all. And that's the whole point of including a failsafe option, to mitigate possible frustration. Changing the mission's loss outcome would address my particular issue with the design concept. I think it would have other drawbacks like... Doing the above would change the atmosphere too. I don't mind that there is a loss condition, I just think it's dumb that it's introduced because you were doing well. Exposing you to another lose condition for doing poorly would intensify the "make it or break it" mood of the mission. Also, this kind of stuff is extremely subjective. I just think rubberbanding is bad in general. I haven't found anyone on any other forum who thinks that the philosophy is a good idea, unless it's just in there as a reverse handicap for people who haven't played the game often(which is why I think that it's ok for it to be an optional feature in competitive games). Which is why I think changing the trigger would solve the problem. I really don't see how it would affect anyone who likes to do base missions negatively in any way, as long as there are valid advantages to doing the base missions, and maybe, which I hadn't thought of before, a way to aggressively "provoke" a base attack, other than just passively doing well. I can imagine them implemented properly, which is why I'm making suggestions on how I feel they could be. If it were like you said, I wouldn't even be attempting to do it. Also, to clarify, my suggestions aren't avoiding Base Defenses, they are providing an option to pro-actively deal with them. I read the Don't Starve article, I'm going to reread it, but from my initial read, I could see where you are coming from with it, but I don't really think it's the best comparison in this argument. And one last thing, I don't have a problem with the way that Xenonauts is handling Base Defense triggers, just X-Coms way.

Your suggestion might as well force it out of the game. there is no practical distinction since that is what is going to happen unless you can elaborate and describe the mechanic that motivates you to actually try/do a base defense mission. The choice you claim is still there is just an illusion of a choice. I'm working under the assumption that everything else remains the same. I.E. If you blast down the UFO with AA, the craft is completely obliterated, if you shoot the ship down with an Interceptor, you get limited salvage, if you face the base defence, you get full salvage. Even if that weren't the case, I don't see how it's a false choice. You choose between spending resources on safety, or risking it and saving resources. So you want to replace something you have decided to see as bad (despite your own admittance that "you can spin it any way you want", ie see it from other angles) with something utterly horrible? (or don't you see anything wrong with the game being frustrating?) Do you mean it's not the "punishment" aspect you have problems with... that you could happily see the players situation spiral out of control into game over and feel that is a good mechanic? I have absolutely no problem with the game making you face an uphill battle for making mistakes. Isn't that the whole point of strategy? Eliminating mistakes? That's what happens in every strategy once you make a mistake, it gets harder to recover, and eventually it can spiral out of control. You learn from those mistakes, thus making an effective strategy. That as long as you don't encounter anything challenging because you did well you are happy? Ignore any reasons as to why the mechanic is actually there? If you encounter it because you are doing well, at least then it stands to reason you can handle the additional challenge. To get it when you are doing poorly is just frustrating and turns it into a really bad mechanic. The problem is that the only additional challenge from base defence missions in X-Com is due to programming limitations. They are MUCH easier than other missions once you work around those.. This suggestion like an attempt to effectively remove base defenses from the game. Sure it's not technically gone, but you're not likely to encounter it unless you mess up in a very particular manner. You claim you have nothing against base defenses that it is just the principle but reading your posts I can't see any trace of anything but distaste for the missions. You don't try to preserve any important bits when you "fix" it. What are the important bits? I don't like the base defense missions in X-Com, because aside from the basic design issues I have with them, they are extremely poorly implemented from a technical level. Did you read that article about goals and rewards in "Don't starve"? (Just to consider what signals you are sending to the player with certain mechanics) Did you read the post by Max_Cain about collected information about base defense? I skimmed over the base defense mission thread. I don't know what "Don't Starve" is. PS. why do you never use the quote or multiquote functions? I use quote when I respond to just one person. I didn't know of multi-quote.

I think his case comes from the fact that the only way to discourage the aliens from keeping sending ships into the teeth of your base's defense until the end of time is to let one succeed in invading your base and having to risk it's facilities to firefights (So fun when blaster bombs got involved) just so the aliens decide that because they lost one ground party, (when you could have been vaporizing battleship after battleship with Plasma or Blaster Bomb base defenses) they should leave your base alone. This is in fact my big point about freedom in this case. Sure, you can shoot down scouts, but that leads to more retaliations. There are base defenses, but they are absolutely useless in themselves. The only consistently viable way to deal with them is to let them happen. And if it's done that way in srsbsns, there's no reason not to do it in a game. I think you missed my point. Most people don't play poker because the game is fun. They play it because they enjoy gambling. The game isn't(and shouldn't be) designed to be fun in itself, it's designed to make gambling be as interesting as possible. Even if it weren't purely gambling though, you're still talking about a game rules in the context of competition. People generally don't compete just for the fun of it, they do it for accolades or rewards, and rules in competition are designed for fair play and even competition, not for fun. Forcing the gameplay that is base defense out of the game (by sidestepping it automatically per your suggestion) because you see it as punishment doesn't give anyone any freedom. My suggestion doesn't force them out of the game. It gives you an option to deal with them. You still have to make the choice whether you are going to deal with them or not. If you can find any other that you don't see as "playing good" please share. How about if you fail to shoot down a UFO, or if you fail a mission, the UFO has a chance to track your aircraft back to the base? Why is it OK for you to attack alien base, but not OK for them to attack yours? Because it's a lot easier for a defending force to locate and destroy an invasion beachhead than it is for an attacking force to detect a hidden defensive structure. Again, I never said "take out base defense". I said if they are going to do it, do it right.