Jump to content

arcweldx

Members
  • Posts

    6
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Reputation

10 Good
  1. I like the changes, but I think the chance of success is still too high (> 50%). The tension comes from the threat of psionics (good). The frustration / irritation comes from psionics overshadowing game play too much (bad). Keep the threat but make it less likely to succeed (for example, save based on on "Morale" rather than "Morale/2").
  2. If you explain it that way, it's easy to understand. I'd argue for keeping it for the tactical depth and because it fits intuition: you want to crouch for cover, but stand to fire over obstacles.
  3. I'm getting the same problem. 100% consistent CTD during alien turn, on terror mission. DEP disabled, Microsoft C++ 2005 (x86) up to date. Replicated on Win7-64b and WinXP-32b machines. The first time it happened, I re-did the terror mission from the beginning and eventually it gets to a point where, again, there's a consistent CTD during the alien turn, after an alien fires. running V22.3
  4. The thread started by focusing on mechanics, but I'd instead focus on *gameplay* - what do you want to accomplish with psionics? Many good thoughts so far about why psionics (here and in the OG) turn people off. The fun of a strategy game comes from being able to control your own destiny through skill and planning. Bad luck and random noise is fine, but at the end of the day you want the sense that the outcome mainly depended on your own good or bad choices. Your own example is a good place to start: "You can't fully protect your soldiers from an alien walking round a distant corner and one-shotting your soldier with a lucky plasma cannon shot either, but doesn't mean there's something fundamentally wrong with the shooting system." I have no problem with the "lucky shot" scenario. In fact, the possibility adds to the tension and paranoia. But it doesn't happen that often, and I can mitigate the chances through caution and tactics. Every once in a while you drop into a hot LZ and you take fire stepping off the dropship. Again, the possibility adds to the tension. But if every landing began with shots coming straight into the dropship killing 2-3 troops, that would be irritating and frustrating. So, some loss of control is good. A great deal is simply not fun. Like lucky shots from the dark, I think psionics should be a threat with potentially devastating effects but only *rarely* takes gameplay (tactics, planning) out of the hands of the player. BTW, I think tying psionic vulnerability to a a transparent trait that's clear from the beginning (Bravery) is a big improvement from the OG, where you discovered in the middle of the game that half the troops you'd worked so hard to develop were now completely useless.
  5. "No viable production-based economical strategy. Stuff you produce has exorbitant production costs, and sells at ridiculously low prices." I love that it's gone. A tedious exercise in the original game, turning X-Com base into a medkit factory.
  6. <p><p>Welcome to the forums!</p></p>

  7. This talk of "streamlining" the game by reducing the number of missions makes me nervous. I find the idea of only 30-40 missions in a game really unsatisfying: I enjoy a long, grueling campaign with many missions, slow tech advance, and the need to gradually build a large, global organization with multiple combat teams spread around the world. To some people this seems tedious, to me (and others I'm sure) this is exactly the heart of the game. I do every crash site because that's what I enjoy, not because I need to obsessively maximize benefits. Ideally you could build in options to cater to the range of playing styles, perhaps along the lines of Civ's "Marathon, Epic, Normal, etc" options where you can choose the pace of progress in the game. For example, a fast-paced option would have faster invasion progression and tech advance rate, fewer UFOs (thus fewer crash sites) but more gain per recovery in terms of salvage and soldier advancement. For the slow-paced option, the opposite. Reiterating earlier posts, there are more elegant ways to limit number of crash missions without autoresolve. 1. Increase the % that a UFO crash is a total loss, nothing recoverable. 2. Make the ability to do every mission offset by the costs of building the infrastructure needed to do so. In other words, with a "minimal" set-up of 1-2 combat teams, I couldn't do all the mission if I wanted to, but with 3-4 teams the extra cost eats up the gains from extra missions. I personally would enjoy the latter, even if there were no net gain in "game progress". Some ways to do this: 2a. Decrease the time window that crash sites are available. As it is, I can send a team from halfway around the world. If they disappear more quickly, I'll need more teams spread around the world to reach every site in time, and this might offset the benefits of trying to reach each and every site. As it is, I also usually have the luxury to delay sending a team until daytime. If I was pressed to send a team more quickly, I might pass on night missions because I'd perceive the cost as outweighing the gain. 2b. Impose a recovery time for soldiers - some period of R&R before they're ready for a new mission. This way I need a larger pool of soldiers to draw on. I might not consider it worth doing every mission given the extra cost and the fact the gains are being watered down by distributing them over a wide group and not a single team of main soldiers. Also, let me cast a positive vote for the idea of "mixing up" the crew composition of scouts to deal with they same-y-ness.
×
×
  • Create New...