Akavit
-
Posts
184 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Downloads
Posts posted by Akavit
-
-
Please read our current plans for our next title before commenting in the thread below:
Having a better enemy spawn system than the XCOM "pods" of aliens that are activated when they see you, for example having all enemies on the map linked via radio and all come running once they are aware of your presence...allowing a stealth system where you can silently pick off guards before it degenerates into a shoot out.
Please also include some basic ideas on how this might work and what you think it would add to the game. What would you like to see within the confines of the planned setting?
I'm a fan of having most enemies already present on the map and avoiding weird auto-spawn systems so this sounds pretty good. Getting into detail, consider the possibility of modifying the reaction of the enemy somewhat so they don't always come rushing at the first hint of fire. Perhaps they could scale their reaction based upon the perceived threat. If they discover a dead guard they might investigate with a heavily armed patrol and put the guards on high alert (making it much harder to avoid detection). If they encounter heavy fire that decimates an entire squad they could either bunker down or respond with all their resources.
Spawning new enemies (as in reinforcements) should occur only at the edge of the map or in similarly logical locations. Avoiding the ultra-annoying situation where enemies spawn on top of the player or preventing players camping on spawn points would take some original thinking. I've not seen a good implementation of that mechanic yet.
-
You'd have to play the game to get the feel but it did work well and that's not just my opinion. It's a pretty universal opinion amongst buyers of that game.
There was an added layer of complexity in that players also had the option to spend both actions for a full attack. So full attack, partial attack and move, move and partial attack or full move were the primary options. Using the 5-step free move gave more tactical options by permitting a player to reposition then perform a full attack. A full attack always ended the turn so the free move couldn't be taken afterwards but it was permitted to do a partial attack then take the move action or do a partial attack, take the free 5-step then finish the rest of the attack.
-
I think you might have to explain what a standard, minor and free action actually are if that's going to be a useful talking point
I mentioned it on the other thread but will say it again here since it's on topic. If you haven't already, you should check out Temple of Elemental Evil. It uses an older version of the DnD system Assoonasitis mentioned but it's implemented in an actual turn-based PC game so should be easier to translate to your own game ideas.
Temple of Elemental Evil Pc Game
It would make great "research" for your new game and I'm sure it's a valid $5.99 tax deduction. heh
It has a terrific reputation and after playing it, it's obvious why many consider it one of the best turn-based combat games ever made. The action system works really well, has tons of tactical options (including targeted "reaction fire" type moves that offer counter-tactics of all sorts). Best of all, it does away with the you-go-I-go system and replaces it with an initiative system where each character gets placed in the move sequence as an individual instead of one side moving then the other side moving. That eliminates the "gang up on a single target" strategy that's popular in convention turn based games.
-
One of the best action systems I've seen was implemented in Temple of Elemental Evil. A player basically got two actions. One attack/inventory action plus one move action or two move actions if desired. They could be taken in any order and the move action would cause a UI bar to drop the further someone moved. Once that bar dropped below the half point, the attack action was lost.
Moving wasn't based upon sections of ground either. Characters could go any direction in and the less encumbered they were, the further they could go with their remaining movement left on the action bar. There was also the option to do a "five-step" move that was considered a free action. It allowed minor repositioning which was often important but didn't require using the attack/inventory action.
Certain actions required using both action points.
I disagree on limited LOS being more fun. I've modded Xenonauts so units can see across the entire map and the gameplay vastly improved. Battles become more about positioning and controlling area instead of spending most of the time moving the entire squad ten paces forward every turn. Firefights last longer and use more ammo but movement is faster paced Scouting comes into play when you need to investigate a cluster of buildings and since you don't have to worry about aliens popping out of the magic black fog, it's not always necessary to reserve half the TU for reaction fire.
As far as a damage system goes, someday I hope to see a game that relies less upon a generic HP system and instead uses a wound/critical/bleeding system. Wounds decrease performance but pose no fatal threat on their own and can be offset but not cured with on field healing. Bleeding drains vitality and will eventually become lethal if not healed. Critical injuries have negative effects on characters some of which are lethal but can be healed, some are lethal and cannot be healed and some are not lethal and just have negative effects which may or may not be reversible without returning to the medical facility.
The thing that bothers my about the standard HP system is that characters are either dead or they are not and the dividing line is the number 0 on the HP bar. Going with a system like the one I mention gives a nod to realism because injuries seldom cause instant death like in the movies. But more importantly it causes a gradual degrading of combat performance over time instead of instantaneous losses. Most cases characters would also drop into unconsciousness before actually dying. This gives the player opportunities to save their soldiers and keep fighting yet imposes consequences on all injuries.
-
That happened to me last night, my second sniper got shot in the back of the head.
I wasn't aware that dragging the wounded helped survival chances. I know that they aren't always dead at the end of the mission, but If you use the number hotkey you can select the downed soldier. If I open the inventory it says "(KIA)" next to their name, I assumed this meant that soldier had no chance of survival.
I haven't played vanilla so I can't be certain it's not an XNT thing but all soldiers have a chance of being alive at the end of a mission if they are on the dropship. The ones that are knocked out with stun damage can be revived in battle with medkits and keep on fighting.
-
So...wait, you mean this game is built AROUND taking casualties? Your members of your squad aren't important enough to really value individually?
It is definitely built around taking casualties. You can lose an entire squad and still come back for another fight. However, this doesn't mean that each squad member isn't important. They are - especially the experienced ones. Losing them is bad but not game over bad. Losing an entire squad and the dropship is even worse but that's still recoverable in many cases.
I mostly avoid save-scumming except for those annoying friendly fire incidents where my men shoot each other in the back at point blank range while aiming for aliens far away so that means I have to take precautions to avoid excessive deaths. Almost everyone gets a med pack and I try to pull all downed soldiers back to the dropship to the point of taking small risks in the process.
The team and mission however, are more important than any individual soldier. Sometimes one gets cornered by several aliens and gets left to die while the rest run to the chopper. Though I try to carry wounded back, sometimes it's just too dangerous and I'll abort the mission and leave them behind.
-
First of all, though I'm playing the XNT mod, I'm pretty sure that losing 6 men in half a month is not close to game over even in vanilla. Seems pretty normal. If you can at least recover some tech and get back to the dropship you've gained something. One of my first tasks in a new game is to recruit an extra 6 or so soldiers.
In the early game, go for pure over-kill and don't worry too much about collateral damage. See two reapers standing near a civilian? That's bait so toss C4 at the between yourselves and the bait then retreat fast and get ready to shoot. Chances are one reaper will die along with the zombie and the second will still be in the blast zone. Be ready to shoot though as they move fast and number two may have scooted past the C4 while his buddy snacked on Bob the builder.
The hardest part is getting established in cover and keeping the early rushing aliens at bay without losing too many men. Med kits can really help keep the squad together here.
C4, rockets and grenades are important in the early missions. You can throw over buildings by aiming "airbursts" at the second level instead of at the ground. Use rockets to deny aliens their cover and c4 to destroy nearby buildings if you suspect rushing aliens. Take advantage of the timers to time the explosions to happen when you're in cover and ready to return fire. Be selective about destroying cover. Leave some for your own advance and avoid opening too many lanes of fire for the aliens. You want to force them into a hole, then fire at them from multiple angles.
If you bring enough ammo, keep the machine guns shooting suppressing fire towards possible ambush locations before you even see aliens. The goal is to minimize alien movement so you can reposition your squad with good firing angles.
It's risky, but sometimes splitting the team in two portions can pay off. I prefer a strong team to attack down one side of the map and a weaker team to do defensive, delaying tactics. I like lots of explosives and a shotgun and sniper rifle for the defensive side. A shotgunner with plenty of grenades and some C4 can really hurt an alien assault.
I've not played vanilla but based upon observations, XNT is harder so tactics that work in that mod should translate to vanilla. The goal of the first mission is to get material for the research labs so do everything possible to make some quick kills, secure the corpses then have some team members run the loot back to the chopper while everyone else fights a defensive battle. If the mission goes sour, try to grab all Xenonaut bodies then fall back and abort so you can at least capture loot with minimal losses.
Recruit high strength soldiers and load them heavy with gear. It can always be dropped. The best guys get disposable, one-shot rocket launchers, C4, grenades and shotguns or higher tier rifles. Sometimes having a heavy weapon at hand for a couple shots will turn the tide. It's tossed when the ammo runs out and before the lack of TU's hurts you.
This game can be sort of like chess or paintball. Angles are everything. You want to spread your soldiers as far apart as possible while still letting them support each other with over-lapping firing lanes. Basically, a piece of cover usually protects best from one angle. Hit it from two angles and the target becomes more vulnerable.
The soldiers on the flanks need sniper rifles and rocket launchers if they are covering open ground or shotguns and explosives it the terrain is dense. Make sure they have a path of retreat and the ability to spot incoming danger in time to retreat. When you're spread out, you need to be able to quickly contract back into a tighter formation if the enemy presses hard on either flank.
Don't fight the battle of attrition. If you have the position advantage, advance. If the aliens gain the advantage, fall back. If both sides are even and exchanging fire, have a couple men delay the aliens but avoid direct confrontation while the rest of the team repositions.
-
That's one reason I never play games with enforced ironman mode turned on anymore. If I run into something I consider a bug or a flaw in the game I'll reload (and all games have some pretty bad flaws mixed in with the good). That tank thing sounds like an oversight to me since the devs did make the intentional decision to permit troopers to fire over each others' shoulders.
-
I forget but think I did make minor adjustments. Perhaps I should just do a major nerf to the weapon stats and see if I can notice any effect at all. I might just be over-estimating the impact of smaller changes.
-
Weaponized Nano-bots deployed by grenades or rocket launchers. These are engineered to target alien biology but are harmless against non-organics or humans. They have a cloud effect that slowly spreads for a few turns causing harm to all aliens in the area of effect until the bots run out of power and deactivate.
Pros: Great for room-clearing - especially where there is danger of friendly fire. Good area of denial capabilities. Will continue to damage aliens infected by nano-bots until the bots run out of power.
Cons: Useless against drones and androns. No instant kills so aliens have time to react. Wind disperses them more quickly so less effective outdoors. Instantly destroyed by heat and fire.
Biological weapons deployed by dart launchers or explosive type weaponry. They can cause delirium and disorientation to organic aliens and can cause panic/berserk type effects and friendly fire in infected aliens and eventual death.
Pros: Damages alien coordination and can cause havoc in their ranks. Viruses continue to linger on a map and can infect by contact.
Cons: Results aren't predictable. Aliens might be immune, might not die and might not be affected before they return fire. Due to limited time available for weaponized anti-alien virus strains, indiscriminate deployment of these weapons can pose risk to humans that aren't wearing biological suits (weaker armor ratings). Humans can be infected by explosive type weaponry so using them can cause harm to operatives, lowers moral and harms relations with the rest of humanity. Using this type of weaponry requires building a decon lab at the dropship base.
-
First of all, I'm playing with the XNT mod at the moment in case it makes any difference for modding purposes.
I've increased the viewing distance for all units and the AI trigger range in order to get long range combat in my game. This part has worked nicely.
The second thing I'm trying to do is increase ammo consumption by decreasing accuracy. I'd like the long range combat to result in a lot of missed shots and collateral damage. Long range shooting is more about controlling the battlefield than making kills whereas quick kills happen at shorter range. This is working out fine for my soldiers as only snipers get more than 15% hit chance at the longer ranges.
The problem is that I've gone through aiprops.xml and lowered all alien accuracy attributes by 20 points plus kept dropping AlienAccuracyModifier in weapons_gc.xml until it's now down to .1. No matter what changes I make almost every alien shot is connecting with my soldiers from max range unless they have pistols. Am I missing some settings that are overriding my changes or are the settings I altered the wrong ones to adjust?
-
Haven't played the latest build yet so perhaps this is already in.
1. Make the flamethrower mechanics available to modders.
2. Option to let fires spread to nearby tiles if flammable or explosive substances are in the tiles.
-
In my experience, most mods aren't nearly as good as the original game. However, with any game that has a healthy modding community, there is always at least one mod project that provides huge improvements over the original game. This is for the simple reason that professionals have to stop working on a project at some point for budget reasons. The amateurs can keep on going until they finally accomplish what the pros would have done if they had the resources to get there.
The best mods also tend to be those that add to the game rather than rewrite it.
That's why I tend to play older games. It takes awhile for the modding community to build the knowledge and skills to do good work.
-
Zerg rushes would be the most effective if they happened only about 1% of the time. The idea is that they are rare enough that the player never really expects them but frequent enough that they might just happen.
If there's a way to tweak settings to make that possible, it is something I might look into for my own play.
-
Now that Xenonauts has been released, who wants to bet the game is a hot seller for 2014?
-
My face is in the backer pool. If you see a face that looks like Bruce Lee, Schwarzenegger, Rambo, Chuck Norris, Einstein, Tesla and DaVinci rolled into one it has to be me.
-
Congratulations. I was here early on but dropped off as the game started to become more complete. Lacking time for serious bug-testing, I chose to stop playing so the content would be fresh and the first play-through more fun.
I'll give the game a couple more weeks for further bug-eradication then start up a nice new game.
Oh by the way, I recommend that people stop playing iron man mode until the game is totally bug free. I've made that mistake too many times in the past to do it again. Actually, I'll never play iron man on any game for that reason.
-
Hmm. Regarding door abuse, I think it would work better to have it take 6 AP to open the door and 15 to close it.
-
If that is the case, it would be handy if the AI's distance calculations for triggering aggression were done as percentages of the total sight range instead of using hard numbers.
-
Well...the HE rockets do create fires...
I know. I've used them in a terror mission to get some badly needed light close to the aliens. They aren't very good for this purpose though. They are heavy weapons, slow to fire and have very limited ammo. Since fires never spread, the light dies out fast too.
It's not like having an autocannon loaded with 14 rounds of flaming goodness plus two extra magazines in the pack.
-
Incendiary rounds in X-Com were perfect for lighting up the night missions. It would be nice to have some.
-
A curve wouldn't do the trick, a curve would rather prevent it happened in the first place.
This is kind of the point. Preventing a problem is usually better than fixing one. If getting rookies up to a decent level is faster, it's no longer necessary for players to send the same squad on every mission in order to get an elite squad capable of beating the aliens. Instead, players can send 100mission Joe out with a bunch of 5mission soldiers and a couple rookies and put up a good fight. 100mission Jane can be left at base with a handful of 5mission troopers as backups.
Rotating troopers for ground strikes is a good tactic and one that most X-Com players who play iron-man mode use. It's only when a game puts undue emphasis upon the continual need for a full squad of elite soldier that the risk of losing them in one mission comes into play.
The question is what to do if you lost all good soldiers. That's when you really need a way to get your soldiers good enough to handle the state of the world at the point in the game you are.Assuming that a player did lose everything (shouldn't happen often if troop rotations were used) getting a new start would be very tough but not nearly as impossible as before. If greenhorns became passable soldiers in about 5 missions there's some chance of success for rebuilding. If it takes 15 missions there's not much chance at all.
The main reason I don't like training is because it's in UFO:ET (at least in the modded version I play) and it hasn't added any fun to the game. I just end up hiring large numbers of recruits then automatically stick them in training for a month before they are strong enough to put on basic gear. New soldiers don't need to be very skilled but they should be usable when they are recruited.
-
Yes, Stellar Rat did say it first. I only read the first page before making my post though so I missed his input on that topic. All I can say is that great minds think alike.
I can't remember for sure on the all-rookie team but I seem to think they were armed with heavy plasma. I've also heard of players defeating the last mission with just heavy cannons but I don't think that was a rookie squad.
I haven't played enough Xenonauts yet to have a good sense for the underlying numbers but properly balanced, the xp curve system should permit soldiers with just a few missions of experience to use the heavier armor. I don't mind losing soldiers and I don't mind the fact that a rookie team has a harder time winning than a crack team. I do however, find it counter-productive to expect a player to maintain a squad of soldiers with 100 missions of experience to have a chance of winning yet also balance the game so that it's hard to survive more than 20. The curved XP system allows players a chance to recoup losses.
Another idea would be to redo the weight of gear a bit and make armors lighter and weapons and ammo a little heavier. Armor is kind of a staple piece of equipment in the later stages of the game but it's not necessary for rookies to have heavy weapons and backpacks full of ammo for them. The latter is nice but not mandatory for survival.
-
If I remember correctly, people have managed to complete the final mission in X-Com with all rookie squads. That means while it was a hard game, it wasn't mandatory to have veteran squads to compete against the aliens.
Recently I've been playing a modded version of UFO:ET. In that game there are several tiers of aliens but unfortunately, the last 4 tiers are just better armed, armored and more accurate versions of their predecessors. By the latter half of the game this ends up putting the player in a situation that is no fun at all. Aliens require 6-9 hits to kill, they kill a soldier in 2-5 hits and they have 90% chance of hitting the player at maximum range. Using the latest and most accurate weaponry, the player will have about 60% chance of scoring a hit with a super elite soldier. A rookie will have about a 15% chance. Did I mention that the aliens outnumber the player troops?
Given the above situation, there's not much a player can do besides resort to save/load to protect the experienced troops from death because it takes 100+ missions to get an elite soldier.
Games like X-Com and Xenonauts are designed in such a way that the player is expected to lose soldiers. It therefore makes no sense to balance gameplay based upon the assumption that the player should have a full team of veterans.
Given the fact that death rates will likely be high in the game, the big gap between rookies and veterans should be closed but not necessarily in all aspects. I have some suggestions in this area.
1. Rookies should start with better stats in two areas: accuracy and strength. At least allow the player to give a rookie a decent equipment loadout. Soldiers shouldn't have to survive a dozen missions just to gain the ability to wear basic armor and carry a heavy weapon and some magazines without becoming turtles. Regarding accuracy, green soldiers don't need to be snipers but it's nice if they can get their fire close to the target instead of spraying it it willy nilly around the map. This means they can suppress or hurt aliens with AoE weaponry at the very least.
2. Skill progression should be fast for green troops but become slower as they gain experience. This way, a soldier with 100 missions wouldn't have 90% more skill progression than one with 10 missions.
3. Use the percentage of AP system for using weapons. This was in X-Com and it helped tone the gap alot. Rookies couldn't move as far but standing still, they could still shoot just as fast.
As a side note, please don't make all the late game aliens like those in UFO:ET(deadly accurate to the point where they all hit with every shot). It's yawn-inducing when the player knows how the dice will roll before clicking the end turn button. Plus, it's fun to see the terrain damage caused by missed shots.
Why We're Not Using Action Points / Time Units
in Pathfinders Concept Discussion
Posted · Edited by Akavit
Well the game I referenced doesn't have many 4x4 battles. The player party can get up to 8 characters and it's not uncommon to fight battles with over a dozen enemies. Some of the bigger encounters involve 20 or more enemies. So it's a proven model for battles of the size you're considering.
If you want the player characters to mostly move at the same time it's possible to give them higher initiative than common enemies to represent superior skill. Most of the time the characters would move before most of the rank and file soldiers but enemy officers, elite units and boss types would be more likely to win the initiative and go first.
Personally, I like having differentiation between quick scout characters and slower, heavy-hitting characters. You can either go for a quick, surgical attack to get the upper hand or opt for a slower team that gives the initiative to the enemy but responds with massive firepower.
It sounds like you're considering multi-player which may be a different story. Player vs. computer, I see no downside to jumping back and forth between characters from different sides.
Not if it works similar to the Temple of Elemental Evil game. I've assembled a little slide show describing it.
The two-color bar on the left represents the 2-action system. PC1 wins initiative and has the option to use 1 action to move and the second for an attack, spell or inventory action or she can use both points for a bigger move. The green move line indicates how far 1 action will go and the yellow portion shows the destination if both actions are used.
I decided to use one action and move a short distance to the side.
After making the move, I had some movement left over and decided to use it to go forward a bit. PC1 is a little forward of the position indicated in the previous screenshot. A character can move as many times as desired until either running out of action or performing an action other than move. I want to do something besides move this turn so I stopped once the green portion of the bar was empty. Action 2 is used for a combat action that will guarantee an attack on anyone that enters range of her polearm.
PC2 is much stronger and therefore less encumbered even though he carries heavier gear than PC1. He gets a lot more distance for each action.
Instead of taking a normal move, I've opted for the 5-foot step which is DnD for a "free move".
I've moved PC2 as far as the free move allowed which puts him right next to PC1. Now I've placed the cursor over an enemy. Notice the action bar on the left shows both the green and the yellow are available? Using the free move permits me to use both his actions to get multiple attacks which in this case would let him shoot two arrows at the enemy whereas using just one action for attack would only shoot one arrow.
Just for fun I put the cursor over the ground. I get an "already moved" message because I opted for a free move which counts as my move for the turn. I can do any action desired except move at this point.
An orc gets to move after PC2 and it looks like he alerted another orc that now gets placed into the initiative slot after PC1. The round is already to PC3 now so the new orc has to wait until next round to do anything. Only one orc has moved and it got stabbed by PC one who was ready for the approach.
PC3 casts an enlarge spell on PC2 which uses one action.
The remaining action can be used for move but not for anything else. You can't do two attack/spell/inventory actions in one round.
PC3 moved behind the others for protection. Without armor, she can run fast so it's possible to keep moving until the yellow bar runs out but the current position is good. The enemy looks melee heavy and I want to keep a tight formation with the stronger fighters up front so I'll end the last character's turn here and let the enemy finish its round.