Frakel
-
Posts
54 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Frakel
-
-
As mentioned, this doesnt happen in every test, but in at least every other. I run the test until game-over - usually that is 5 months.
So to experience it in a single test running just two months, you would have to be (un)lucky...
It is odd, however, that is happens less often in this save, than in the test rund I conducted yesterday. (In the first three test runs this possitive funding happened multiple times in each test.)
-
[ATTACH]3024[/ATTACH]
This is the setup I use to run the test. Just load the save-file and speed ud the timer...
In at least every other test run I see these weird positive funding changes - but I´ve been unable to pinpoint what is causing them...
-
Ive tested three "hands off" games on veteran difficulty.
- I make no interceptions, no research, no ground combat...
- At the end of each month I note the funding change for each region
As you will see in this image, some regions gets positive funding - even though I dont do anything...
Is this a bug or some hidden funding mechanic working behind the scenes?
-
at least let us try and win that country bad even if it is a very hard mission or 2,maybe destroy a base and then a mission to stop them infiltrate a building and taking over (you win if you save a certain npc he or she just staying in their office).
Or what about you get intel about a country leaving and to make them stay you need to build a base there and get their rating above a certain lvl in a certain time frame if you don't they leave?, this idea would throw a spanner in the works of a players plans where to build their next base and at least give them a chance of stopping the country from leaving if they want too.
I disagree with the idea that you should be able to win back a lost region.
On the contrary it ads to the suspence and mood of the game that a dead soldier stays dead and a lost region is lost for good.
But of course the player should receive the necessary information to be able to predict when a region is at risk of being lost. A dashboard view of the regions - or simply the ability to call up the monthly funding overview at any time could do the trick. (Obviously it should then show changes in funding for current month).
I am also quite sceptical about the two or three strikes system - to me it sounds arbitrary and gamey.
Rather I would recommend keeping the current system - if a region reaches zero funding it is lost (this is intuitive for the player and the information is readily at hand.)
In addition add the risk of a region leaving if a particular month has been sufficiently bad - compared to current level of support. The system I proposed a few post ago would mean, that a region which eg. looses 25% of its current funding in a given month, also has a 25% risk of leaving. I think this would also be intuitive for the player to understand, and the information could be displayed with some qualitative labels when viewing the region on the geoscape ("small risk of leaving", "moderate risk of leaving", etc.)
And if the idea of a probabilistic approach to region withdrawal seems unappealing, then you just set a rather high threshold for when the risk is actually rolled. Eg. risk below 20% or 25% is never rolled to avoid too much randomness. On the other hand, I find it a very plausible simulation, that a region might leave after a single really disastrous month (rather than allways leaving after two or three slightly negative months in a row - as would be the consequence of the Two/Three strikes rule).
You know - region behavior should be like the story about boiling frogs...
The story goes, that if you put a frog into cold water and only heats it slowly - then the frog wont really react to the slowly worsening conditions and it wont jump away before it finally dies.
But if you put a frog into very hot water, it will react on the sudden change and jump away from the pot immediately...
-
It would be interesting if after losing soldiers in a downed dropship or by leaving them behind in an aborted mission they showed back up on the alien side.
That… would… be… AWESOME!
-
What I love about Xenonauts so far, is that it presents itself as a defence simulator.
The solution to the issues with geoscape balance should be to improve the simulation.
I´ve thought about 3 suggestions based on ideas put forward by others on these boards:
1) Change the rules for region withdrawal from Xenonauts
2) Change the rules for funding in general
3) Change alien behavior on the geoscape
1) Change the rules for region withdrawal from Xenonauts
Two intuitive rules:
a) A country withdraws if it reaches zero funding
b) If a country suffers negative funding change, there is a chance that it will withdraw based on previous relations and how large the negative change is.
The chance is calculated as (funding change)/(funding prior to change).
If this percentage is below a certain threshold (e.g 10%) it is counted as 0%. (To avoid loosing countries due to freaks of RNG)
(examples in excel sheet below).
That being said, I would also like to change the rules for loosing the game…
If a player is able to reach the final mission, with only a few regions still funding him, that would be an awesome story about endurance against all odds… Why should you loose the game because an arbitrary number of regions leave the project?
2) Change the rules for funding in general
Funding is calculated as (base funding level) * (relations modifier).
Soviet Union and North America has a substantially higher base funding level than other regions (they are superpowers).
These two regions also get a boost to relations (they are founding members of Xenonauts).
Events that effect relations, increase or decrease the relations modifier by a set amount.
I´ve tried to make en excel sheet that exemplifies the result of these changes:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/9g3282832dqi8rl/Screenshot%202014-01-25%2018.52.15.png
These rules have a lot of implications for gameplay...
Regions with high relations becomes more resilient to funding loss. They are less likely to quit if you have negative funding change.
Regions with low relations becomes really vulnerable.
If a player want to pursue a one base strategy (or two base strategy), he could place his bases in North America and Sovicet Union and still manage to pull decent funding, even though the rest of the world crumbles around him.
If, on the other hand, a player want to play a game where no regions are lost, he should place his bases in regions with the lowest relations. But doing so is gonna cost a lot of funding, since negative events in North America or Soviet Union are more costly than similar events in regions with a lover base funding level.
Where to place your bases thus becomes a meaningful choice between different strategies.
3) Change alien behavior on the geoscape
Divide alien missions into general disruptive missions and missions targeting xenonauts.
The following rules regards only general disruptive missions.
Assign a weight to all regions based on landmass. The weights affect the likelihood that a UFO on a given mission will target that region.
Whenever a UFO on a mission is shot down by xenonauts over a region, reduce the weight of that region for that type of UFO only.
When a region abandons the Xenonauts, its weight is reduced to zero. It will no longer be a target of the regular raids.
However, if a region is lost, the Aliens will send UFO´s to construct bases in it. If successful, these bases will spawn UFO´s ON TOP of those already being generated by the game. Thus the loss of several regions should speed up player decline.
If a xenonaut base is successfully destroyed by the aliens, increase the weight for that region for all UFO´s. (The Aliens rush to take down the now unprotected region).
Taken together, these rules ought to have the effect, that the aliens gradually shift their focus away from regions where their UFO´s are successfully intercepted.
But when the larger UFO´s enter the fray, they may target that region with equal likelihood again.
Unprotected regions will be increasingly targeted speeding up their withdrawal.
When a region is lost, all other regions (including those closer to the player) will experience an increase in UFO´s (due to the Aliens resifting their focus).
This ought to give an ebb and flow to the game, where consistent successful interceptions will require the player to stretch farther and farther away from his original bases.
Again the player has a meaningful choice of wether to pursue this with more bases, or consolidate his position and wait for the resurgence in nearby regions or the appearance of larger UFO´s.
If a player looses a base, he is in for a very difficult time. The loss of a base will be a prelude to a rush from the Aliens and thus probably the loss a region.
-----
Well this is just some ideas… They might need some tuning and tweaking and rethinking… But I wonder if they might allow for different player strategies, increase tension, and allow for faster plunge into despair if the balance tips. Thus less need for arbitrary rules and more room for simulation.
Ultimately this gives rooms for different experiences or stories…
- Do you want to pursue the story of how the Xenonauts took upon themselves to protect the entire human race? (Even though their original founders in NA and SU looked with dismay at it…)
- Or do you want to pursue the story of how the Xenonauts held fast, dug in, and endured to the end - even though half the world turned against them and started serving the alien masters?
Very different stories… The choice is yours!
-
I like the idea, but I wonder how the game would communicate what's going on and not leave some players wondering why some aliens can see them and why "dumb AI doesn't react to my presence at all!"
Have the research texts explain this in further detail?
-
I´ve had the same experience as Stellar Rat. I run out of Alenium for upgrading my air force because I don't do enough recovery missions in the early game.
Thats also why I think the idea of having some ufo´s land earlier and stay landed longer (while generating negative funding events) has a lot of merit.
- it gives more incentive to ground combat
- it gives a high risk / high reward mission to acquire Alenium. (rather than having to do a multitude of crash sites)
I'd also like to see a country chosen at random that the Aliens pretty much beat the **** out of from month 2/3. If somewhere like South America, South Africa, Indonesia, Indochina or Australia was under the cosh I might consider putting my second base there.The understanding being that only then could you stop the negative spiral of funding AND you would also want to stop the Aliens planting a base there.
The idea of having the Aliens focus on some randomly selected country/region is really good! It would diversify games and give incentives to locate second base in different locations.
If you are really cruel with the geoscape AI, then in month 2/3 you let the aliens select a random country that is out of range of your first base. And then in month 4/5 you give them a new priority target that is out of range of the bases you have operational at that time…
On top of these priority targets you would still have to deal with the standard waves of UFOs...
-
I thought you already received three times as much Alenium from landed UFOs?
Yes - thats what I was referring to. Perhabs I wasn't so clear about that
-
Another cool feature that probably won't happen because the art assets would have to be made for it is to see humans start appearing among the enemies, once at least one nation has surrendered to the aliens. The aliens would probably use them as grunts or cannon fodder, but it would drive home the reality of the invasion quite nicely. Not only are you fighting the aliens, but you are also fighting the traitors, and fighting what your race would become if you lose.
My first encounter with x-com was Terror From The Deep... I can still recall the revulsion I felt, when the research text explained that the hideous "Deep Ones" where genetically half human and half alien... The first twisted result of the experimentation of the aliens...
I would just so much love to see such twisted abominations in this game as well... But probably not going to happen due to art ressources... It just ads so much flavor to the setting... And makes the implications of the invasion very real.
At least human traitors or "brainwashed" troops might be possible to implement... Just take the "local forces" assets and repaint them... (crosses fingers...)
-
There are some really good idéas presented in this thread!
I especially like the idea about some UFO´s
- being set to "land early" (and thus being difficult to intercept for air combat)
- stay landed for extended periods (and thus being easier to intercept with dropchip)
- and generating negative relation events while landed (thus giving incentive to engage i ground combat)
- and giving generous amounts of alenium/alloys for capturing a landed UFO (thus giving a high risk / high reward source for these)
Id much rather do a few high risk / high reward missions to aquire the needed materials, than having to grind aircombat or crash sites...
-------
Just something else to consider:
While toning down the amount of alenium/alloys you get from air combat, I would argue against removing it completely.
It is a good thing that ground combat primary driver is materials + research + xp, while air combat primary driver is funding and cash.
But it is also a good thing that materials and cash aren´t exclusively air or ground combat - it makes room for different approaches to the game - which is good.
-
I was hoping that she would appear in a training screen, back when there was a chance of proper training in the game.
She WOULD fit in nicely in that capacity... (only we dont have training anymore...)
And the game could also do with at least one strong female "character" in one of the base screens...
-
-
Is it correct that region funding is roughly calculated as: effective funding = base funding level * relations ?
If so, then base funding levels could be tweaked a bit to encourage settling bases away from the "sweet spot" in north-east africa.
North America and Soviet Union could have a higher base funding level than other regions (would fit the lore).
Indochina and australia could also do with a little increase.
In addition it would be great to add some level of randomization to base funding level and starting relations for each region. This would add replay value. You would always remember that game, where the starting parameters prompted you to make your first base i south america or australia...
-
-
I like your new drafts very much. Especially the text for the bombing run.
I´ve only got a few comments regarding the first couple of lines:
I was talking to one of the junior researchers at R&D (the seniors don’t have time for the little guy), and she told me they had identified over three and a half thousand separate alien craft orbiting our world. If they all landed tomorrow we’d be dead. As it is, the ETs have merely committed to the largest air war since Hitler was in power.Perhabs it is just me, but when I first read this I got confused that the "little guy" were a girl... On second reading I got the meaning of it...
The second thing is the irony in the "merely committed" sentence. Should 'merely' be in italics or something else to indicate the ironic tone?
-
Really great work with the last two additions to the mod. I like the "tone" of the mission analyst, but you should probably go over all the entries again once the mod is complete. Your feel for the character and thus your way of writing him might have progressed during the work with this. I particularly like the fact that this character is patronizing the science team somewhat - since they in turn patronize the technicians. At the same time, you want the character to stand apart from the chief scientist. One thing that helps in this is your referrals to the participation and (limited) help of other nations. I get the sense that this information officer is a team player, where the chief scientist has got an ego the size of Uluru…
. But you might want to emphasize this even more. It could be a special tag, or a special introduction or a certain way of presenting things - but as soon as the player starts reading one of these entries, it should be clear that this is another character speaking.Great writing - keep it up.
And the artwork is really sweet once again.
-
The Briefing Screen doesn't really provide much in the way of useful information, so I'd like to remove it entirely [...]
As explained in this post, I feel that you should go in another direction and instead use the briefing and debriefing screens as an opportunity to display the great artwork of the game. Rather that regarding the briefing screen only as an opportunity for information, you should expand on its ability to supply mood, atmosphere and flavor to the game.
-
In short: More artwork is better than less artwork.
Background art is a no-no, I'm afraid. It's not consistent with the look of the other windows, but more importantly it's just very difficult to read text on top of a painted image because of all of the visual noise.If background art i no go, then I suggest reworking the mission debrief screen into the same style as the new "immersive" UI. I would very much prefer a screen that is split into two tabs, but with room for victory/defeat artwork dispalyed next to (but not behind) the debrief information.
- The great artwork of this game is like a reward in itself! When the civilopedia is updated or your base is upgraded, the images are more than half the thrill.
- Mission debrief should feel the same. We spend a lot of time looking at tiny sprites in the battlescape or stats on a spreadsheet - the artwork is one of the few places where soldiers can be presented less abstract. Not as numbers or pieces on a board, but as living, breathing, scared, confident, despairing, victorius human beings.
- I would really urge you to consider redesigning the debrief page(s) with this in mind.
If you´ve got the ressources, I would even suggest multiple variations in the artwork for the briefing and debriefing screens. Simply because the artwork is a reward in itself. Variations could depend on terrain type, mission type or graduation in mission outcome.
- It would be awesome to be rewarded with a new screen after you finish your first mission in an alien base. Or to see an apocalyptic nuclear blast after a failed terror mission. Or... Or... Or..
---
That being said: I really like the way you are displaying the debrief information now. It is shorter and much more concise. Well done!
-
Frakel, now you know your enemy?
Do you want to know more?
-
The posters are absolutely gourgeus! Both the wording and the artwork hits the style spot on. Very, very impressed!
-
Yay! A new build. Ive been itching to try out the new air combat balance.
-
I also don't expect this to be included in the game at release - but who knows what might be added at a later stage… (I to am a wishful thinker
) -
I think this approach with a % chance not to fire has a lot of merit. The % could even depend on soldier/alien stats like reaction.
[V21 stable candidate] Weird funding - bug or hidden mechanic?
in Xenonauts Bug Reports / Troubleshooting
Posted
Great work Jeon!
This confirms my own suspicion that the positive funding was somehow tied to bombers and interceptors.
I haven't tried modding (wouldn't know where to start), so my only option was to let the geoscape run, and manually investigate all regions every time an event occurred. And with several events often happening at the same time, this was just speculation on my part, so I didn't want to post it.