Jump to content

Newfr

Members
  • Content count

    106
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

10 Good

About Newfr

  • Rank
    Sergeant

Converted

  • Location
    Moscow
  1. Great, looking forward to see all that in a new stable release =) Also found another hardcoded bit of text: on Workshop tab there is a "Required:" string. And if project required nothing (for example "Hunter" armor car) it says "none". And you can't translate that "none".
  2. Newfr

    Russian translation + resonansER

    Не спора ради, а просто интересна ваша аргументация, почему именно "страж"? Ибо тот же упомянутый Солвером танк в Википедии переведен именно как часовой. И вообще, часовой это более военный термин, тогда как страж - общеупотребимый. И поскольку тут мы имеем военную организацию, логично предположить о приоритете военной терминологии. По смыслу/символизму же оба варианта подходят одинаково: это то, что стоит на защите человечества от пришельцев.На счет английского это палка о двух концах. С одной есть проблема, о которой вы написали. А с другой... Вы читали Ксенопедию? Ее писал человек не видящий разницы между пушкой Гаусса, рельсотроном и магнитной катапультой в физике и изобретающий адскую херню в биологии. Вроде респираторного эпителия в мозгу (!), который занимается метаболизмом (!!) наночастиц Алениума в крови, что дает мозгу энергию, сравнимую с мощностью АЭС (!!!). Выводы аля "у него большие глаза, поэтому он хорошо видит" или же определение возраста неизвестного существа в десятки миллионов лет по образцу его ткани... Вообще, сейчас идея перевести как есть, все замечая и записывая в черную книжечку. Исправляя только небольшие вещи вроде того, что снаряды с взрывчаткой внутри выстреливаются пушкой Гаусса, а не магнитной катапультой как оно должно быть. А уже после релиза Ксенонавтов (ибо глобально что-то править в игре, находящейся в разработке - дело неблагодарное) отказаться от первоисточника, ибо он ужасен, и переписывать многое самостоятельно.
  3. Yeap it is. There even was an airplane crash (and a "Air Crash Investigation" episode about it) because guys in Canada mix up gallons and litres, got confused and end up with plane fuelled for just a half of what they needed. So after that metric system was enforced in that particular industry in Canada. And that was a sad story about how people died because some chaps prefer their very own system and pretend that using an international one isn't a common sense.I'm glad that Britain and it's former colonies still use imperial system but your game a) Aimed for international crowd b) About international organization and metric system is "internationally agreed decimal system of measurement".
  4. There was at least one thread about it but that lead to nothing really. I mean right now game have a very strange mix of both metric and imperial measurement systems. For example, everything about aircrafts (speed, range, size, weight and etc) are in metric system but service ceiling for some reason is in feet (ft). Or vehicle speed all of sudden is in mph while everything else is in metric system. I'm not going to debate what system is better (my opinion is metric ) but i think that everything should be in one system be it imperial or metric. That a common sense. And since Chris said that game is almost ready (90-95% done) i believe it's a right time to put such things in order.
  5. Newfr

    Living in a Save-Scum Paradise

    He is a save-scummer and requesting an auto save option for begining and end of each GC turn (in 2 different slots). Because he either forget to do it himself or just lazy =) In my opinion this is a useless idea or you need 4 slots for some kind of rotation. For example you did a wrong move and aliens killed some of your soldiers in their turn. With manual saving you'll save only if alien turn outcome is ok with you while game actually doesn't care and will overwrite your save file anyway. So auto save "begining of turn" will be overwriten with that bad result and your "end of turn" save probably useless since you spent all/most TUs and can't do much to prevent exactly the same outcome. Kind of fail.
  6. Well, lore wise it's possible (aliens have some teleportation technology or can use drop pads), but not sure that 50% is ok. Probably faster Terror Site creation is better idea. Because it's strange when Dropship enters atmosphere near North pole and slowly flying to Cape-town to crate a Terror Site. Good idea, but early in game you probably will have only one base (initial) with soldiers and Charlie. Not sure but as far as i remember Charlie don't have a world wide coverage. So if that Terror Sites will appear out of range for your first base that will be an awful situation. As already stated by mostly everyone this is an awful idea. Basically that means every region you don't cover in first 2 months potentially lost to you. Good idea (without that 2 strikes rule). Also maybe adjust initial funding of region according to it's territory? For example you can cover whole EU with just one base (somewhere in Italy) plus you will have almost whole Middle east and North Africa covered also some part of SU. While it's just impossible to cover SU with just one base. So base location can be more viable: you can choose to go after one big region like Indochina or North America (full cover) that pays well or few smaller ones (with equal funding). Well, that don't go well with real world (EU, SU and USA should be most wealthy), but game balance wise is a good idea i think. Can't say anything without testing that.
  7. Nope, since i'm also translating the game and need just a latest stable release for that purpose. And i didn't like what i saw in 20 stable. If things got better - great. Btw it's easy for AI to wreck human in most games because it has more calculating power behind it (aimbot anyone?). AI could just have an unfair advantage (like insane accuracy, tons of hp) and that will be a very hard opponent. Will it be interesting one? I don't think so (example - Berserker form EU2012: dumb like brick but can be very difficult to deal on high difficulty). Just saying that "hard" not always equal "good", nothing more. I'll leave this discussion since there are guys like legit1337 and kraex who have same ideas (or close enough) as i do but can express their thoughts in English much better. So i'll silently support em Just a small thing before that. Look here or here. What do you see on screenshots or on that PC screens? Right, tactical combat. And there is a reason for that. That what sold your game to a lot of people, that's basically a first thing that most people imagine when they hear about games like XCOM. And that what in my opinion should be more important than shooting ufos down. Should i as a consumer care about everything you said? Nope. Also you forgot that Xenonauts were in development for 3 years when Chris made a KS project. And did i say it do? I could mention Wastland 2 (was made from a scratch also) that in Early Access now. It was there just as some thoughts on my "Duke Nukem Forever" theory. Well, you see for example in SC2 timings for building your first worker are always the same no matter the strategy. But what you will do after is up to you and strategy you choose. That's ok. But when you know that MMM strategy is the best way (and mostly the only) to do things no matter what that isn't ok at all. And right now air domination strategy (look at kraex post about what you need to do) is that way. And i don't think it's ok. And actually there are lots of games where there is no such thing at all. Like chess, every sport game i know, all card games, all TCG and so on (what can you do with what you have).
  8. That actually leads us to another problems:1) Base locations aren't that viable also. With just 2 bases you can cover 9 regions out of 10 (who cares about Australia anyway?). And places around Maxico or Cairo are unmatched as a base locations. 2) Also, according to lore, aliens are testing humans. And Xenonauts are the only humanity's hope. So aliens should be very interested in challenging Xenonauts. And that means that UFOs should appear near existing bases far more often than somewhere in the wilds. So lore wise one base strategy as viable as fast expansion strategy. But nope, they prefer to do some EVIL experiments over some bear corners of the Earth. 3) Why you all talking like "more challenge = more UFOs" or "more landed missions to generate rating"? You see challenge only in stretching players resources? How to kill 10 dumb aliens instead of just one dumb alien? Right - send more dudes! That how it works now. But at the same time you just inviting grind to the game with this "more" concept. And no one like grinding, because it's repetitive and boring. So you are trying to invent counter-grinding with all that autoresolve and air strikes. And then bashing your head against the wall trying to balance actual gameplay (normal air fights and ground combat) with you counter-grind mechanics. But in my opinion problem is with that "10 dumb aliens are better than 1 dumb alien". One smart alien is better than one dumb alien. OH SHI~ Also there were some discussions why Civ analogy is wrong.
  9. And what it has to do with autoresolve being a joke? Just one question: what is the outcome of this dogfight with autoresolve? And back in 19 build it was a clear win for MiGs with all UFOs shot down. Ofc sending 3 Condors after Light Scout, autoresolving that and saying "See? See? This works!" suits "doing perfectly well on Veteran" better. Why i would use MiGs only? Yeap, that's not practical and so on, but that's only proves that building as much bases with as much aircrafts as possible is the only viable strategy atm (not like it became suddenly like that, but more and more so with every build). Good luck trying to turtle on one base and invest heavily in ground combat techs. Neither air nor ground is war according to lore. It's just aliens toying with you. And you have a zero chance to win anyway.
  10. Yeap, that and Silent Storm are my favourites so far. Maybe Age of Wonders too. Playing The Banner Saga now (great art and sound track i must say!). Another project with turn-based combat i backed on KS. And it out already unlike *cough*Xenonauts*cough*. For real? Because of what? Because balance is all about "throw more shit at you" (8 aliens in a ship described as a "mere probe" in Xenopedia)? Because air combat mini game a bit more complex than in original game (but you could lost aircraft in OG permanently)? Oh, sorry i fail to see greatness of this features under dumb passive AI and few metric tons of bugs... And you see, i remember clear enough Chris said that they will release game around 2K's X-COM (not to mention that KS campaign said "Estimated delivery: Oct 2012"). Ok, 2K's X-COM already got an addon and Xenonauts are still in development. Is it 4 or 5 years already? And i don't see an end to that. And completely reworking some aspects of the game just add to that. Actually that reminds me about Duke Nukem Forever. A LOT. So i really don't get all this "changing game principles on a fly" thing. Hope this game will be a better game than Duke at the end. Don't even tell me about autoresolve. It's a pure joke right now. And before you nerfed MiG it was even more so (single MiG could shoot down every UFO up to medium UFO one on one with 4 Avalanches). While autoresolve had 0% chance to win with such layout (it changed to 50% later i believe). So yeah, autoresolve is complete fine and reliable thing...if you want to lose. Look what kraex said. He did a better job describing some moments than i.
  11. It was already said and confirmed that you can beat the game doing about 10 ground missions while i can't find any proof that you can beat original X-COM with just one ground combat as you say. Probably you will need the same ammount of missions just to get needed tech, but you will run out of money before you can get to Mars. So i don't know who "exaggerating wildly" here. You are trying to shift focus from tactical turn based combat to that real time air combat mini game, make it less important. Yes, you do. Stop deny that. Ground combat was everything for XCOM: your reputation, money, materials and tech came from that. And now? Just some extra money, materials and tech. Looks like about 1/3 of that "everything" moved to air combat. But for me XCOM is like 90% tactic battles + 10% management. And i'm perfectly fine with that. So you just making a cake for propeller-heads and telling "screw you, guys" to those who prefer ground combat? I don't want that "more challenging air combat", never asked that and can't understand why game have to change for that. "A blend of turn-based ground combat and strategic command" that's my thing, that what i ask and that's why i supported Xenonauts in a first place. And now you telling me that i'm asking too much, everything changed and etc.?
  12. I can't even describe how i'm disappointed in such change. I backed this game because it was like good old UFO: Defence with some twist (air combat). Some quotes from KS page: "A blend of turn-based ground combat and strategic command", "Xenonauts is a spiritual successor to the classic X-Com strategy games". And Xenonauts was like that in that time. And what are you trying to do now? A tactical air combat game with some twist (ground combat that you can COMPLETELY IGNORE). FFS, should i even say that ground combat WAS THE MAIN FOCUS of all three X-Com games (i can't care less how 2k ruining X-Com name now)? "The nation wouldn't care" my ass! No one care about aliens running rampart on your backyard. Ever. "Jenny, go throw that pesky Sebillian a cheeseburger, maybe he will go away then". They don't care how much civs and/or their soldiers will be killed in action? They don't care how much aliens will get away? - Sir, we are done, but two Reapers run away in direction of a city over there. - Relax, soldier, it absolutely fine and safe. Really? Yeah and carpet bombing a village (some mid east maps are clearly looks like a village) instead of ground operation doesn't look bad at all! They even give you money for that. - Jenkins, how you feel about bombing out your home town? Not to mention that civilians are still there. - I'm excited! It's such a good practice for me, sir! This deserves an etalon facepalm from International Bureau of Weights and Measures.
  13. Owwww...That's not good in my opinion. Not to mention that there will be no point to try saving civs.
×