jazzglands
-
Posts
34 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by jazzglands
-
-
Could you ad in a feature to disable and enable the vertical take off of Soldiers because they fly into the air for the slightest distance resulting in them getting shot. In EU you could tell them to go into air at will and the system for them was smart without getting your guys killed.
Aliens reaction-firing at airborne soldiers is a known bug.
-
So, something's been bothering me a bit:
A Condor is a big vulture, not a bird of prey. It's ugly, and it's a scavenger. Why would we name a plane after that? Why not something actually cool? The only reason I can think of naming a plane after a condor is because condors can (probably, done zero research) stay up in the air for a long time, which F-17 Condors kinda can, in reality terms, but in gameplay they're the lowest fuel airplane we have.
Does this bother anyone? Or is it just me?
Also, the MiG-31 was designated Foxhound by the NATO guys, which works well (two syllable word, meaning jet aircraft, F is the starting letter, so it's a fighter).
But then the Xenonauts change it to Foxtrot. Why in the world would we use the word foxtrot? That's NATO (and aviation in general) nomenclature for the letter F.
We're basically flying giant "F"s in the sky.
What('s) (with) the F?
Just wondering if anyone else was bothered by this, and if it warrants changing. Really, it kinda sounds just lame, to be honest. Here I am, flying my vultures and my "F"s. Just sounds lame, and not in line with the decidedly not-lameness of basically the rest of the game.
They are called foxtrots the science chief wants to F the aliens.
And no I don't have a problem with Condor. They're big, strong (as far as birds go) birds even if they're scavengers. At least when it comes to US military hardware, we tend to pick names like Condor.
-
They are still incorrect choices. Sorry. Avoiding the problem is hardly ever a solution.
I used to believe as you did, before I became a professional programmer who had to actually sit down and design a complicated project. It's clear you are at best a student of the field and at worst an armchair designer with no experience or expertise and a greatly inflated sense of his own knowledge.
If I am wrong and you do have this level of expertise, then I hope you make your own X-COM clone. For a developer of your obvious skill and experience I would expect it no later than September of this year. I look forward to enjoying it.
-
Doesn't seem like I have that permission. Do you know of a reputable file sharing site?
-
For the same reason I could just not use sniper rifles on most of my squad' date=' but I do anyway: because although it makes the game less fun when I use the best weapon, when I don't use a bunch of snipers I know I'm playing the game badly. That creates a feeling of dissatisfaction. I really wish I could find the talk the Civ 4 team did on this, I think they called it the "leaky bucket" effect.
There's also the problem that if it's left in, balancing is harder. Take the LMG tier of guns, for example. They're meant to be inaccurate and immobile. But if I level up properly, I can end up with soldiers so fast and accurate that they can use LMGs the same way normal soldiers are meant to use assault rifles.
How to level is hidden from the average player, to boot. So they don't even know if they're playing the game correctly.
We've also got people saying that this is a problem that cannot be fixed, or that it would be too time intensive. I say that this is a Gordian Knot. The devs can change strength, accuracy, reflexes and bravery to level up the same way as resilience in the code. After that, it's a relatively simple matter of tweaking GameConfig.xml. Give those stats pointsToProgress="1". Then change APProgress to pointsToProgress="1" maxPointsInSingleBattle="2". There we go, you now level up your men by having them take part in a mission. As long as they move, they improve.[/quote']
I dunno. I guess I consider optimization a means; not an end. If you are winning missions in an entertaining way, you're playing the game "right" enough for me. The tactics are what really engross me, not the RPG mechanics. I like seeing my soldiers take different paths of growth based on what I used them for in the game, and I like seeing soldier diversity begin to come in over time. I guess we all derive satisfaction from different things, but it doesn't seem like the core of XCOM is stat-mongering.
I get why you'd want it changed though.
-
Occasionally I see a crash at around Oct 30, 1979 on the current beta release. According to the dialog box, the reason is a pure virtual function call somewhere.
It's intermittent, I've only seen it happen when the geoscape speed is set to 4x, and I have a save if you want it.
-
Why would they want feedback about balance changes on an old build?
Also, I went until the end of october before I got my first game crash. Your mileage may vary of course, but I think you should just stick with it.
-
If you hate stat grinding, you could just do what I do and not stat-grind. Same with any optional optimization mechanic: as long as there's a difficulty level where it's not necessary to win, then a player has the option of not doing that thing.
It's not like there's a leaderboard or multiplayer or anything so why does it matter that those who wish to stare at their screens grinding all day can stare at their screens grinding all day?
-
This is exactly what I mean. This is artificialy created "balancing" issue which does not help aliens at all but ruins exploration fun for players. Maybe need to fix implementation, so aliens shoot only if lets say 80%+ to hit rating, otherwise they can do something better that lose all their action points without doing any damage. I dont want AI to be dumb, but they act dumb right now
I endorse this plan. Aliens should be able to shoot down walls and cover like humans can, but there comes a point where it seems silly for them to attempt it. Something as simple as a range restriction or hit% restriction could do a lot to alleviate that.
Perhaps the AI could have the aliens advance toward the humans if they can't get a reasonable shot off. That would make it important for the player to act aggressively and take out enemies as quickly as they could (or get themselves set up in a defensive area of the map) in order to keep from being surrounded.
-
hate cross posting, but this one seems to have spread out a little, so just to add tuppence here with a possible solution
Issues
Loss of aircraft is prohibitive in current game.
Reliable recovery of indestructible aircraft from remote/extreme/oceanic environments breaks immersion.
Xenonaut aircraft (possibly damaged) always escaping to make emergency landings against superior foes breaks immersion.
Perception of indestructible aircraft is one of pandering and hand holding.
Solution
Condors are free. They take 72 hours to be sent from funding nations and to be upgraded.
More advanced craft are also free, but with varying delivery times. [smoitessier added "but need Alenium from you" as a possibility here too.]
Either :-
1) Gatling lasers et al, also become free as per alenium torpedoes following their research.
Or
2) All weapon systems must be manufactured. This includes an alenium torpedo/ alenium missile launcher for each craft. To keep some actual cost in losing air combat.
Both provide consistent solutions across all aircraft weaponry, rather than the mixed approach currently in place.
Reasoning
A large number of assets in Xenonauts are already free. Ballistic Weapons & ammo, grenades & their enhancements, Stun weapons, base facility updates such as defences, medical equipment, advanced weapon tier ammunition and, importantly here, aircraft ammunition and missiles.
With infinite amounts of the technology available in 1979 provided free to the player, it is odd that the Condor, containing no alien technology, cannot be provided free by the huge aerospace producing nations of the world.
Later in the game, it is expected that local forces begin to shoot down smaller UFOS. This means they have the air capability and aerospace infrastructure in place to do so. So having them be capable of supplying craft to Xenonauts in far smaller numbers ties in nicely to that.
Another tie in is with the crashed UFOs that produce no ground combat missions. Fighters for example. As the wrecks must crash somewhere, there's no reason why they can't be collected by the funding nations they land in. Those alloys and that alenium, from those wrecks, support their advanced aerospace.
The know how to build the craft comes directly form the completion of the Xenonauts research programmes being distributed to the funding nations.
There are no individual pilots, so there's no experience or training to be lost. Pilots are supplied by the funding nations along with their craft.
Pros
- No crippling costs for players as they deal with air combat.
- Reduces importance of air combat to overall success of game itself. 1 lost mission with 3 destroyed craft will not be game ending.
- Tension is fully retained in air combat
- Sense of permadeath maintained in game
- No perception of hand-holding, molly coddling or whatever other criticism.
- A solution for both camps (hopefully)
- No additional mechanics, buttons, hand-wavium or anything else required.
- 72 hour delivery time for Condors is equal to that of recovery of indestructible aircraft.
- Delivery times of advanced aircraft would match the recovery time + some of the repair time of indestructible advanced aircraft.
- Promotes the spread of Xenonauts into other funding nations.
- Prevents Goldhawk from being sued by the makers of the A-team for having no one ever die in a crash.
Controls
Available Hanger space still controls the number of aircraft you can receive from funding nations.
Game economy controls availability of funds to build hangers. Their cost/maintenance of hangers can be balanced accordingly.
Current game economy makes spreading into new territory or building facilities at normal level very hard. So Hanger spamming should already be limited.
Cons
Xenonauts has progressively made a number of items free or automatically updated. As a result, manufacturing has become less important in the game. Free aircraft & possibly all ammunition for them adds to that list. There are solutions, but out with the scope of this post.
I like this. It removes the prohibitive cost of air combat without requiring the devs to add in a bunch of new mechanics this late in the process.
I'd say that advanced aircraft should not be free though. With free condors, the player has all the strategic tools necessary to protect their expensive planes.
-
Just like your own soldiers can do. After an alien is spotted, all soldiers can attempt a shot at him, no matter if they can see him or not. It is a feature and a realistic one, in my opinion.
Yeah but sometimes they try to shoot through multiple walls from the other side of the base or other such ridiculousness. I get that the AI is probably just trying to blow down the wall with plasma weapons or penetrate them with HV weapons, but it seems like there should be a range or number of walls or something after which the aliens doing bother with that.
-
I resently played xcom (old) and its air combat was reasonibly balanced all size craft appeared from the start and the small ones never really went away until you did amazing at the game then they sent in the bigger stuff. But with this one its like tiered on a monthly basis; Month one: Small Scouts and Scouts Month two: Scouts in the beginning then fighters and bombers for the rest of the year
Hah. This is a known thing though. Balancing air combat and the geoscape in general is the next step for the developers.
-
Regarding Chris's original design ideas:
I like having to deal with staffing, but I don't think my enjoyment would be seriously impaired if I didn't have to deal with it. There's still a lot of strategic play on the geoscape with multiple bases, equipment management, squad management, and so on. I don't think I'd really miss having to hire/fire my techies. A lot of people have been talking about controlling upkeep, but it seems like you could just tie the upkeep cost of labs/workshops to the amount of scientists/engineers currently working on a project. It's the same thing as judiciously hiring and firing your techs, but you don't have to to the busywork of clicking around the hire/fire buttons.
Eight soldiers per barracks seems pretty low to me. I'd say the base should start with two and the barracks building should be 1x1 if you really wanted 8 soldiers per barracks. That could just be me and my play style though I guess.
Overall, those ideas seem like it would gear the play more toward managing your buildings and less toward managing staff/balance sheets and I think that's a positive change.
-
I'm just saying it's a ridiculous bit of "gameplay over logic".
You mean gameplay over simulation. Perfect simulation is not the goal of any game. Except perhaps Dwarf Fortress
.As others have said, "gaminess" that adds to the enjoyment is not a bad thing. I personally enjoy searching for the UFO.
-
So that video memory, what about integrated GFX? I have a crappy C2D+2GBRAM notebook I'm considering installing it on, but at 4.4GB it's a bit of a download if it's not going to work.
It's just 2-D sprites. Should work fine.
-
I think that realism is still preserved for the initial screens. By the time you reach the top of the tech tree you're evenly-matched with the aliens so something a little more bright and advanced-looking makes a lot of sense to me.
-
It's XCOM with a UI that isn't horrible. That's really all I wanted, even though I appreciate and enjoy the 3-D Enemy Unknown remake quite a lot.
There's still a lot of balancing and redesign going on, but it all seems positive so far and I have no reason to believe that the devs won't perfect it given time.
-
I think they "scout" it by flying over the base.
-
I once missed with a stun grenade then had a unit pathfind his way through the stun gas. He passed out instantly. When I got back to base, I nicknamed him "Dozer."
-
of curse but these are well trained pilots they should have some clue how to fight with there air crafts.
they don`t need to be stupid.
That would be like saying your ground troops should know how to secure an area and you shouldn't have to control them in order to succeed at a mission. It wouldn't be much of a strategy game without any strategy.
-
I came across a line of sight bug today on this version. It looks like a "destroyed floor" tile next to a "destroyed wall" tile causes line of fire (but not line of sight) to be blocked. Screenshot here: http://i.imgur.com/I1oWnno.jpg
I have a save file of a battle where this bug is present if you want it, but I don't know where to host it.
Edit: It's not the machinery that's blocking the shot. You can tell by the way the line is drawn. Also if you try to aim past the "broken floor" tile a few spaces up and right from where the soldier's LOF is broken you'll see the line is broken there as well.
-
-
Is it just me, or should at least one of those people in the UI be a woman?
No, it's just you who should be a woman.
dohohoho
Really though isn't the quartermaster a butch woman? Even if not, I guess I wouldn't mind seeing a woman in one of those screens. There can be female soldiers after all.
Edit: I do have two questions about the new UI though.
Some of the soldier stats have two bars: one light and one dark. What is that supposed to represent?
Will it be possible to tell which soldiers aren't at full HP in the new UI? I couldn't see anything like that in the mockups, and it looks like the "personnel" screen has been eliminated and split up into the other screens.
-
Maybe world governments are just doing the same thing we are: crafting small batches of prototypes and giving them to the soldiers that are sent to fight aliens.
Fallen Soldier Memorial
in Xenonauts General Discussion
Posted
I think this was an unmet kickstarter stretch goal. I'd love to see it, but I don't know if the devs will incorporate it.