Oh god, what a waste this game is

[Rutger]

I can't remember your suggestion off the top of my head, but I seriously doubt you had a solution for flares that everyone who plays this game would think was the perfect way of handling flares. Is your opinion more valid than that of Crusherven, who likes them? If so, why?

If not, then you can't say that I am wrong about flares. You can just say you'd have done it differently in my position - which is fine. But in all likelihood if I'd followed your idea there'd still be someone somewhere objecting to the flares system (it just wouldn't be you).

My suggestion was to make it as an optional feature, available in options menu, altogether with enabling/disabling indestructible interceptors and unlimited weapons/ammunition. Pop-up message could be added, warning that those changes will make Xenonauts a more difficult game. I think this is the most reasonable solution which maybe you could consider, Chris.

[ViewThePhenom]

I doff my hat to Chris and the team for producing a fantastic game while sticking to their script and not succumbing to scope creep. Sure, the game isn't perfect in my eyes, but I realize that there will always be things I would have liked to see implemented to make it a more enjoyable experience for myself.

Also, I am grateful to the fantastic work the modding community is putting in with regards to giving me free access to those features I feel the game is lacking. The developers can only do so much, please understand that.

[KevinHann]

Well in terms of satisfying everybody nothing beats providing as many options to pick from as possible.

[KevinHann]

The developers can only do so much, please understand that.

You, sir, all due respect, are asking the impossible.

[thixotrop]

So many people are criticising the game for the lack of this, the unoptimized feature here or the wrong behavior of that.

That's ok, everybody can have their own opinion. But it is just a game. An indie game with limited budget and manpower.

Your view of the game is valid, but it is not the only counting opinion. And "drama queen behavior" (waste of time...stupid game...no true successor...) is just a cry for attention in my view.

Enjoy the game, maybe only partly, or not. You don't always get what YOU want...(maybe some day you get what you need. Spot the song and artist?)

If you have your own idea how the game should be, do your own game or at least a mod to this with all changes you want. This game allows a lot of this. And maybe a lot of people (including yourself) will enjoy the game even more. The modding guys here are so amazing and especially for weapons there are a lot of mods that people do enjoy.

In my view I don't think the weapon tiers are boring, that is part of the game. And for me, I immensely enjoy the tactical ground combat.

Sure, I could see how different weapons would spice the game.

A plasma weapon that has a high possibility to inflame the near vicinity of the hit target? Certainly a powerful but also tricky weapon to manage.

Lasers that diminsih over space, proximity grenades, flamethrower, incenderay rockets...why not, the game will change with it. Better? Maybe, but the current game is still great.

(Flames were mostly deleated from the game, because the certain manpower has left the project. This is a good example for limitation of an indie game here.)

If I could wish for features to implement it would be:

- purely random maps

- maps with height levels, i.e. hills, valleys

- maps with more animated objects: traffic lights, flickering neon lights, cars passing by, animals, animated water (to be able to cross)...

- maps with more usable items: cars, tanks, lifts...bicyces? ah why not.

- throwing anything around: ammo clips, weapons, medikit...

- random continents (like the Civilization series)

- team definition; alpha team, UFO breach team, alien base assault team

- more complicated wounding with consistent wounds for soldiers (deaf on one ear, leg partly stiffened...)

- ....

You see I could go on. For me the immersion is more relevant than weapon tiers.

If I would be so picky, the game would be a really really bad. But then I will never find a game (or anything else) that suits me.

If I could mod I would try do such implementation. Or would try and fail, because it will be hugely time consuming until it works flawlessly.

Telling your opinion is ok and helpful for the devs, but stay objective. Have you ever listed good and bad, maybe with an objective emphasis factor? Which side is the winning?

[Chris]

My suggestion was to make it as an optional feature, available in options menu, altogether with enabling/disabling indestructible interceptors and unlimited weapons/ammunition. Pop-up message could be added, warning that those changes will make Xenonauts a more difficult game. I think this is the most reasonable solution which maybe you could consider, Chris.

True, that's a better solution than most proposed. However, the game is balanced around having unlimited flares so if we add the options and make either of them viable, we have to balance night missions so it is equally difficult to complete a mission with limited and unlimited flares. And if we make one of them the "official" option, you're effectively just modding the game anyway.

Even the idea of giving players options is controversial in game design circles at the moment: http://www.gamasutra.com/blogs/AndrewPellerano/20140616/219270/The_Danger_of_Game_Options.php

I don't necessarily agree with that article, but it's just an illustration that even the idea of giving the player choice is not automatically something that people will agree with.

No, his opinion is less important, because he doesnt seem to grasp, that this game, much like the "original" is not a casual one. You are supposed to deal with the problems he avoids, you are supposed to find a balance, that is not easy to achieve, that is part of the game as much as trying to avoid the funny angles, through which you get insta-gibbed all the time.

The point is a bit deeper than that, though - when is something "casual"? Is the Firaxis XCOM casual? Most people would consider it a pretty hardcore game, but a lot of people on this forum wouldn't. People who play XCOM would probably consider Xenonauts hardcore, but the people who play Dwarf Fortress or proper wargames probably consider it casual. We got criticism for both when the game was launched...plus plenty of praise for being just right.

I don't really mind, to be honest. It's very easy to pick holes in the design decisions I made in Xenonauts, but it's also very easy to pick holes in the criticisms. People are allowed to dislike / like however much of the game they want to and I'm generally cool with that.

But if anyone thinks their own gameplay suggestions would definitely, objectively improve the game for everyone...well, you're probably mistaken. If I implemented them, a whole new bunch of people would appear with a new set of issues. The only reason your ideas are not being criticised is because they're not in the game for people to disagree with

[Ragnarok]

Even though i agree with the weapon development and tiers being boring, im VERY interested in what the OP has to say regarding the NEW and GOOD Feature that is Assault-Shields.

[ViniJones]

I would define casual as a piece you dont really need to put your mind into, you play it to put your mind at ease. It looks great, its got a story and you have fun or win without too much effort. Much like books and movies.

Im not sure how I would categorize the enemy unknown/within its got everything except content. You get to play your 20 missions a 1000 ways and once you get over the first month even impossible ironman is manageable. When I blew up the mothership I said "This demo looks great, cant wait to see the actual game." I think its one of those that even DamianAyre would find fun if the difficulty is set low enough.

I think youve demonstrated relativity enough to make your point. And perhaps you can see why I cant consider Xenonauts casual.

What does it offer except challenge?

[MortuusSum]

From pure curiosity, is that the point? To appeal to as many and as much to increase the scores and sales?

Clearly everyone thinks the weapon tiers suck.

That statement is a fallacy. Everyone who's taken the time to bitch about it thinks the weapon tiers suck.

[ViniJones]

That statement is a fallacy. Everyone who's taken the time to bitch about it thinks the weapon tiers suck.

That last part was more of an attempt at mockery of taking 4 examples and claiming everyone has a different opinion, when theres pockets of people claiming they have the same or very similar ones, than an actual statement. Im pretty sure my cat LOVES the weapon tier system.

[omglaserspewpew]

Even though i agree with the weapon development and tiers being boring, im VERY interested in what the OP has to say regarding the NEW and GOOD Feature that is Assault-Shields.

Oh as I've mentioned in both my previous posts, I'm completely in love with them! They actually change gameplay compared to OG and other similar titles. I wish developers implemented more ideas of this kind.

And if shields could make it into the game, why couldn't other fresh equipment?? I think the answer is "because they weren't conceptualized early enough." Lets put this into some perspective:

Time and money has to be there, dude. This game was supposed to be released back in early 2013, iirc. As it is, with the resources they had starting out, I would take mods to suit your needs as a wonderful solution ...

I'm perfectly aware of that. I have experience with modding and game development and I never demanded GH to make an AAA title or a game twice the size of current one. I didn't ask for 'more' but for 'different'! More variation would have been perfectly possible, had it been conceptualized early enough in development. That's why I stated above that Chris&Co. shot themselves in the foot right at the start by purposely confining themselves to building a remake. If they had more of an open mind, it could have been different. Instead of starting with the prehistoric tiered weapons template, they could plan a more advanced and varied tech tree.

I know that development doesn't end with the first build and you need to carefully balance the pieces - and yes, this more expanded and varied environment would most probably be more demanding to balance. But that's the price of innovation and progress. If they were bold and made it, there would be bigger success as a result as well.

But when you write a post pointing out where the devs got it wrong, you're pointing out things that would make the game a subjectively great game in your opinion (i.e. great to you) rather than objectively a great game (i.e. great to everyone). There's really nothing concrete that suggests us making those decisions differently would have increased the sales, appeal or review scores of the game because clearly everyone thinks totally differently.

I understand where you're coming from and I can agree in a general case - but not in this particular case of stale weapon progression I'm criticizing. As I have explained in my previous post, the games need to continuously force players to adapt. This is one of the axioms of game development! It's a fact, not my subjective opinion! And Xenonauts just doesn't achieve that, I'm sorry. It just doesn't. Every battle develops by more or less the same token. You can win the whole game by repeating a couple of moves you learn at the start of the game. This is analogous to winning Street Fighter just by spamming hadouken all the time! And when aliens start throwing grenades at you, you do a shoryuken. Stronk tektik.

Seriously, think about this again: ground combat in Xenonauts is analogous to a fighter game where you can win by spamming one or two combos the whole time, because the opponent never changes his combat tactic, nor does your repertoire of moves expand! This isn't just my subjective opinion. It's empirically verifiable. And this is bad game design.

Of course, many players are completely content with the current system:

I personally haven't experienced the weapon tiers as boring.

I'm gonna go on a limb and say that those that like the current system probably aren't series veterans, but newbies. When I first played Enemy Unknown and Terror From the Deep 20 years ago, I went batshit krazy over them. Not only did the linear tech tree not bother me then; I wasn't much disturbed that Terror From the Deep was almost a direct re-skinning of the original! I was in love. Only when I played Apocalypse and further similar titles did I grasp the need for variation. I admit, I couldn't play Extraterrestrials to the end, it was just too boring (iirc there are not 3, not 4, but 5 tiers of completely similar rifles, goddamit). Right now, after having played every UFO clone in existence, I can safely say that Apoc, Aftershock and Afterlight are far superior than anything else in this genre ground combat-wise. Other games don't even compare.

What I'm saying is: people are content with current tiered tech progression, because they haven't experienced anything better. If they had, like I had, they would have started yawning mid-game in Xenonauts.

[ViewThePhenom]

Players will get tired of what's presented sooner or later, or find the optimal way to play which most players will flock to; there is no stopping this. There is enough variety in the source game now to keep it fresh for a long time, it's up to the players to mix things up.

As for your fighting game analogy, that specifically is wrong. Unless you're playing against the AI (irrelevant), one or two tactics will not grant you success past the beginner level. Once you move beyond that point, players understand how to counter said tactics and you should begin to understand that you either adapt or lose; sticking to your example, the SF franchise is balanced well enough to the point where this is true for just about every game. Making an analogy to a game designed to be played with more than one player, where the opponent has access to every option that you have AND has the intelligence to use them in a similar manner and counter them effectively, which changes the match completely, isn't a very good call, imo.

Although I could just be completely off here and what you're asking for is better AI or enemies with enough advantages to fall in line with the advantage of player intelligence? Or maybe you just wanted something that didn't attempt to stick to the original XCOM so closely? In which case, why complain about it when that's one of Xenonaut's selling points? Why not check the mod section to see if anybody is working on what you would have liked instead of claiming the game is "broken" because it doesn't meet your requirements? Hell, maybe less people would have been interested if the weapon progression was different, what makes you so sure that your opinions are the best?

What you're basically saying is, more players would prefer what you think should have been included in game, which doesn't have enough supporting evidence on its own to be accurate.

Edit:

To be fair, I do understand what your complaint is. But I can guarantee giving the player a more varied tech tree wouldn't change the fact that the enemy progression is unable to stop a "basic" tactic from taking you through the game easily (assuming this is even true). What's to stop you from just repeating the same tactic with the same equipment types instead of using all the new shiny equipment that allows you to fly, shoot rockets into the air and any other fancy things you can name? There's only so much the AI can cover, you probably need a difficulty mod (or insane mode) to get the challenge that you want.

Unless it's really just a case of "I wanted to see x, but it's not in so the game isn't worth my time"?

Edited June 24, 2014 by ViewThePhenom

[Ragnarok]

wow, dat Street Fighter analogy.

I think you overexagaratting (sp?).

In your example, each Xenonauts map would be the same, and you would always fight Ken with Ryu.

Note that there are many Alien species and ESPECIALLY Maps.

In Addition, there are still Machine Guns, Grenades, Pistols and Vehicles.

Id say there was a lot of potential. For example, i would have loved to see deployable Machineguns and proper supression fire. I imagine Dawn of War II-style MG supression

Andd "FRIGHTENING" Aliens and not just human reskin (Caess... wah) Aliens. Personally, i am bit disappointed because this game could have been so vastly superior (and to be honest, in my eyes, did not deliver on the KS promises) but its decent nontheless.

A good part of my disapointment (KS Starter here!) however is made up by the fact that Chris is opening the source to modders, which is a REALLY huge deal.

Im hoping that over time and with source Access the game will be made better than i "expected" it to be in many aspects.

Edited June 24, 2014 by Ragnarok

[TacticalDragon]

There's only so much the AI can cover, you probably need a difficulty mod (or insane mode) to get the challenge that you want.

Unless it's really just a case of "I wanted to see x, but it's not in so the game isn't worth my time"?

+1 to ViewThePhenom,

Maybe omglaserspewpew thing that add content to a game that have such a deep strategic detail is easy.... No, your wrong add content is pretty hard to balance. Add weapons, equipment and stuff its only a time taking task, but balancing?... Is other thing.

Im with ViewTP, the game is atmospheric and pretty hard in Veteran and Insane.

I understand some of the points that omglaserspewpew touch and some of them are valid, but as ViewTP say... I prefer "put my hands on fire" and gives content to the game instead of criticizes.

[TrashMan]

I have to partially agree with the OP. Partially.

When talking about game design choices, in most case there isn't a clear cut "best way" to make something.

Take for example a 1st person shooter and the following mechanics - health regen vs. medipacks and weapon limit vs. no weapon limit.

Which is better?

There is no proper answer, given that they both present pros and cons in equal measure and have been used successfully and unsuccessfully in various games. I have my preferences, but I cannot claim clear superiority.

But linear weapon progression? It has only ONE advantage. It is simple. Simple to make, simple to balance, simple to understand.

But simple does not equal good. After all, non-linear weapon progression is not so complex that we, the players, can't comprehend it - we're not morons. From a resource perspective, it does not require any more resources, just balancing changes. Given that modders are already doing just that in a few hours it is anything but difficult. Heck, I'm doing it. Adding splash damage to all plasma is a piece of cake.

There is no denying that non-linear weapon progression adds more choices and more versatility. Furthermore, it gives each weapon family/tier a specific role and feel. Lastly it just make more sense.

So at least with this choice, I believe that one is objectively a superior one.

[kabill]

But simple does not equal good.

But "not simple" doesn't (inherently) equal "good", either.

There's a lot of posts on this thread saying that it would be a good thing to have non-linear weapon upgrades and giving examples of what these might do. There's not a lot of people thinking about what kind of difference this would make to the game.

Lets think through some examples:

1) Higher accuracy weapons: On average, a weapon which is more accurate is more or less the same as a weapon that does more damage. There's some small interaction effect between damage and armour values which means that the higher damage weapon would actually be better against armour, and there's a small interaction effect between soldier accuracy and weapon accuracy which means that higher accuracy soldiers get a comparatively higher bonus to hit. But unless you're talking about large differences in accuracy, this is largely going to be negligible. So higher accuracy produces more or less the same effect as higher damage, but makes it more difficult to compare different kinds of weapons in terms of their effectiveness. You've added complexity without really adding much else.

2) Damage over time: Again, there's not a massive amount of difference between damage over time and damage done immediately. It makes the weapon slightly less effective in the short run in return for (presumably) slightly more damage in the long run. But again, unless you're going to turn it into a major feature (e.g. a tox gun which slowly poisons the target) of the weapon, it's going to make a negligible difference.

3) Splash damage: In principle, this is fairly interesting, but creates some difficulties. First of all, it pretty much negates the effect of any cover the target is adjacent to, since if the cover blocks the shot the splash damage will still hit the target. That seems like a feature, but when you think about it what the weapon does is negate an aspect of ground combat which facilitates tactics. Basically, if your attacks can ignore cover, you no longer have to worry about cover, and cover is an important part of making the tactical game interesting. Secondly, it would interact badly with the way in which shot scatter works, since when you shoot from a corner shots that scatter in the direction of the corner will hit it. So the weapon would be unusuable in some instances since you'd have a good chance of blowing up your own soldier.

4) Hyper-velocity: Again, this makes the game less tactically interesting because it makes cover irrelevant. (This was always my main gripe with it back when it was still in the game.) I think hyper-velocity could make an excellent ability for some alien weapons, mind, since it would require the player to adopt a different way of approaching such aliens. But for the player, it's pretty much a game-breaker.

My point, then, is that it's all well and good saying that higher tier weapons shouldn't just be a damage upgrade, but you also need to think about whether this will actually add to the game and, more importantly, what it might take away.

There's also issues with regards to progression. The game is designed such that higher tier weapons are supposed to be superior to their lower tier equivalents. This seems fair enough, since if they're not, or if they're only comparable with previous weapons, there's not a strong incentive to build them. But if that is the adopted methodology, the different strengths of the different weapon tiers are irrelevant, since whatever their differences the higher tier weapons are still better and still the ones you will upgrade to. In other words, these differences simply become 'flavour'.

For example, imagine laser weapons had improved accuracy as their bonus rather than improved damage. Either they're comparable with ballistic weapons (in which case, why bother building them, since you're just paying for something which is as good as the free weapons you already have?), or they're better (in which case it doesn't really matter if they're more accurate or do more damage, because you're going to upgrade to them anyway. It's not going to radically change up how you play the game).

An alternative methodology, of course, is to have higher level tech as an "expanding bag of tricks" with later weapons filling additional weapon roles. But then you're heavily at risk of ending up like many RPGs, with very few interesting options early on in the game and only a full range of choices towards the end of the game, thereby rendering the early game uninteresting by comparison.

(For those familiar with XCOM 2012, this is more or less how that game works in terms of soldier perks. The amount of stuff you can do early on is heavily limited; it's only mid-late game where you have a range of soldiers with different abilities that the tactical element of the perk system really comes into play.)

None of this is meant to imply that I think it's impossible to make weapon tiers diverse and different from one another rather than straight upgrades. Indeed, I look forward to seeing a mod that does this and does it well. But I do think it's more difficult to make it work than has been implied here. To me, a lot of the ideas thrown around here don't seem to add very much (and, in some instances, might even make the game worse). In exchange for added complexity, I'm not sure that's a reasonable trade.

[G-Bee]

I'm gonna go on a limb and say that those that like the current system probably aren't series veterans, but newbies. When I first played Enemy Unknown and Terror From the Deep 20 years ago, I went batshit krazy over them. Not only did the linear tech tree not bother me then; I wasn't much disturbed that Terror From the Deep was almost a direct re-skinning of the original! I was in love. Only when I played Apocalypse and further similar titles did I grasp the need for variation.

[/b]

Actually, I'm an X-Com vet and have played all similar releases, including the Extraterrestials game and Ufo games etc.

I still feel the same way as you did when you played Terror From the Deep. It's X-Com all over again and that's fine with me. Could never get in to Apocalypse, so I guess they went to far with the changes for my taste.

That's not to say the weapon tiers could be more interesting when changed; I'm sure they could. The problem is that it might be changed for the worse, and then everybody would complain that it ruined the game. Like those blaster launchers were simply overpowered in the original X-Com.

---

edit: just saw that the poster above me (Kabill) already made the point I'm trying to make

Edited June 24, 2014 by G-Bee

[TrashMan]

But "not simple" doesn't (inherently) equal "good", either.

There's a lot of posts on this thread saying that it would be a good thing to have non-linear weapon upgrades and giving examples of what these might do. There's not a lot of people thinking about what kind of difference this would make to the game.

Lets think through some examples:

Now you are oversimplyfing things and using false equivalence.

So you are wrong. If it's the same, it would be the same. But it's not.

Weapons have various properties that differ. Accuracy. Effective range. Damage falloff. Splash damage. Rate of fire. Ammo capacity. Weight. Damage. Armor penetration. Just to name a few.

No higher accuracy is not the same as higher damage.

DoT and immediate damage is not the same either - sometimes reliable damage is more important than alpha damage, sometimes it's the opposite. Not to mention that different targets have different resitances, all of which makes things much less clear cut and much more interesting.

3) Splash damage: In principle, this is fairly interesting, but creates some difficulties. First of all, it pretty much negates the effect of any cover the target is adjacent to, since if the cover blocks the shot the splash damage will still hit the target. That seems like a feature, but when you think about it what the weapon does is negate an aspect of ground combat which facilitates tactics. Basically, if your attacks can ignore cover, you no longer have to worry about cover, and cover is an important part of making the tactical game interesting. Secondly, it would interact badly with the way in which shot scatter works, since when you shoot from a corner shots that scatter in the direction of the corner will hit it. So the weapon would be unusuable in some instances since you'd have a good chance of blowing up your own soldier.

I see no problem there. The weapon being sub-optimal in some situations or unusable for corner shots is a small price to pay for splash damage.

Furthermore, who said that cover would have no effect? It might reduce splash damage (In fact, I think it already does that)

4) Hyper-velocity: Again, this makes the game less tactically interesting because it makes cover irrelevant. (This was always my main gripe with it back when it was still in the game.) I think hyper-velocity could make an excellent ability for some alien weapons, mind, since it would require the player to adopt a different way of approaching such aliens. But for the player, it's pretty much a game-breaker.

Variety makes for things that are tactically interesting. Stagnation and same-old does not.

A weapon that can pierce trough cover do not suddenly make tactics dissappear.

Or are you saying that tactics does not exist in RL combat, given that we do have weapons that can pierce cover? So which one is it?

My point, then, is that it's all well and good saying that higher tier weapons shouldn't just be a damage upgrade, but you also need to think about whether this will actually add to the game and, more importantly, what it might take away.

From what you wrote, it doesn't sound like you have been giving it much thought then.

There's also issues with regards to progression. The game is designed such that higher tier weapons are supposed to be superior to their lower tier equivalents. This seems fair enough, since if they're not, or if they're only comparable with previous weapons, there's not a strong incentive to build them. But if that is the adopted methodology, the different strengths of the different weapon tiers are irrelevant, since whatever their differences the higher tier weapons are still better and still the ones you will upgrade to. In other words, these differences simply become 'flavour'.

Quite the contrary. As it is now, there is absolutely NO reason to keep a few of the lower tier weapons.

The different utility and strengths (a.k.a. flavour) is what would keep them USABLE

For example, imagine laser weapons had improved accuracy as their bonus rather than improved damage. Either they're comparable with ballistic weapons (in which case, why bother building them, since you're just paying for something which is as good as the free weapons you already have?), or they're better (in which case it doesn't really matter if they're more accurate or do more damage, because you're going to upgrade to them anyway. It's not going to radically change up how you play the game).

Why bother? Because they're more accurate? You are again, looking at this in a very, very limited fashion. Look back to the top of the post and read about the attributes a weapon can have. you are again fixated on just one or two tops.

Maybe I would want lasters because they make rookies more accurate. May I want them because they are more ammo efficient. Maybe I want them because they are better at punching trough armor. Maybe none of is true. Maybe all of it is.

that is a matter of balance, but it clearly shows that there are indeed many reason why someone would change weapons.

To me, a lot of the ideas thrown around here don't seem to add very much (and, in some instances, might even make the game worse). In exchange for added complexity, I'm not sure that's a reasonable trade.

Oh, SUCH complexity. Much numbers. Very wow.

The poor little gamers and their piddly brains can't possibly handle anything that isn't a clear cut +1 or +2.

It's thinking like that that pisses me off...

You are wrong. There is absolutely nothing that is taken away, and a LOT that is added. The scales are so redicolously overtipped on one side it's not even funny.

[Chaos Blade]

You know, the weapon tier is something that oculd have probably been handled better, yes. I for one miss the Exploding and Incendiary AC ammo.

But I am more concerned with the auto upgrade of airfleets (and the free of cost auto replacement) and vehicles. yeah I get why they did it, I just don't like it. it takes from the game, and that is always bad.

But this is a great and fun game, difficult too, and lacking the artificial and kludge difficulty of the knockoff (2012). this is a game where I am waging a war and it feels like it, can absorb casualties, have a sizeable team (that still feels kinda small, but whatever) with an eclectic mix of weapons I can control.

So far I am yet to beat it, so I am breaking new ground so take my opinion as a work in progress., but I like what I´ve seen thus far.

And when I beat it, I have a ton of mods I am aching to try. Honestly, that is a far better situation than the knockoff´s

[kabill]

@TrashMan: So, I wrote a big giant multi-quote post in response, but realised it was going to be entirely unhelpful. I'm not especially interested in belligerent conversations over the Internet and it's apparent that this could easily become one. So I'm going to do something more productive instead, then, and say this: I agree with you!

My previous post was never meant to imply that having non-linear weapon tiers was impossible. Indeed, I say as much in the final paragraph. My point was that it's not as simple as just going "give tier X higher accuracy; give tier Y splash damage; job done!" If my examples seem simplistic, it's because I was basing them upon the examples which had been thrown about upthread. So, I'm happy to accept the argument that it can be made to work - indeed I already conceded that point - but (as you yourself imply) it requires somewhat more complex solutions than single features.

I think for me the main problem with non-linear upgrades is that it doesn't work very well with a linear tech tree. If you have to wait 3/4 of the game for MAG weapons, having them be largely equivalent to, rather than superior to, existing weapons overall seems somewhat absurd.

So if you want non-linear weapon improvements, I think it would work best with a non-linear weapons tech tree that doesn't just consist of progressive tiers. I'd suggest instead a tech tree that branches out into advanced, specialist weapons instead. For example:

- At the beginning of the game, you start with ballistic weapons as normal.

- By researching alien weapons, you can unlock and build laser weapons. These are more or less an upgrade to existing ballistic weapons which improve on them in a variety of ways (higher accuracy, damage, ammunition, speed).

- By researching alien materials, you can unlock advanced kinetic 'bolt' weapons. These are more powerful in terms of damage and suppression compared with laser weapons, but lack the aim and speed bonuses, are heavy and have low ammo counts.

- By researching advanced alien weapons (and maybe the alenium reactor) you unlock plasma weapons, which are very powerful single-shot weapons.

- By researching alien types, you unlock advanced chemical weapons which (ideally, if it could be done) would do damage over time and/or damage the TUs of the target.

And so on.

The idea, then, is that as the game goes on the tech tree branches out. Laser weapons constitute a basic second tier, but the third tier is divided between a variety of weapon types (bolt, needle and plasma). It would also need to be accompanied by a similar branching of alien weapons (in this example, less powerful alien weapons like the pistol and rifle would be laser weapons, while the more powerful weapons like the heavy plasma rifle and plasma cannon would be plasma weapons) to make it work, but that's fine (and interesting in and of itself).

Of course, there's more possibilities than this, I just wanted to use this as an example for illustrating how non-linear weapons tech might work better if the tech tree was similarly non-linear. What you end up with is a growing array of specialist tools rather than an entirely new tier which is supposed to be both an improvement over old tech and a specialist set of weapons at the same time.

Oh, SUCH complexity. Much numbers. Very wow.

The poor little gamers and their piddly brains can't possibly handle anything that isn't a clear cut +1 or +2.

It's thinking like that that pisses me off...

Going to have to disagree with you on this, though, on two counts.

Firstly, I never said gamers can't cope with complexity. I said that adding complexity for seemingly little reward is not a good thing.

Secondly, while some gamers can cope fine with complexity, others really do struggle or find it off-putting. I need only point towards the many complaints about the %TU system to support this point, since one of the pervasive arguments against it was that it's "too complicated". Thus, in so far as complexity is a deal-breaker for some players, adding in complexity does carry with it a cost (which is to say that something is "taken away"). That's not to say that complexity is never a good thing; it's merely to reiterate the point that there's no naturally 'right' answer to the question at hand.

[StellarRat]

But "not simple" doesn't (inherently) equal "good", either.

There's a lot of posts on this thread saying that it would be a good thing to have non-linear weapon upgrades and giving examples of what these might do. There's not a lot of people thinking about what kind of difference this would make to the game.

Lets think through some examples:

1) Higher accuracy weapons

2) Damage over time

3) Splash damage

4) Hyper-velocity

I agree with your entire post. Also, in regards to #4, there is absolutely no scientific basis for a higher velocity weapons to suddenly start piercing cover. That only works if the projectile is specially hardened AND the velocity is not so high that the projectile and cover vaporize on impact. For energy weapons it's completely ridiculous. Any energy beam that can instantly kill a human is going blown up cover as well. In fact, all the energy weapons in the game would in "real" life cause an explosion when they hit ANYTHING. High powered lasers don't burn nice neat holes through things they explode the surface of the target.

Regarding #1, that really only makes difference in a game where the shooter can remain hidden while firing by virtue of superior long range spotting and accuracy, cover and camouflage.

Edited June 26, 2014 by StellarRat

[catmorbid]

I guess some people are simply more content with a simple, linear progression. I'm fine with that, but still, it's foolish of those people to claim non-linear is not better or more interesting. It's a matter of execution and attention to detail, what matters most.

E.g. high accuracy weapons benefit most if you implement targeted shot. Research could actually tell you where you need to shoot to kill it fast, instead of the automatic 10% damage bonus abstraction.

Damage over time itself is pretty boring, I agree, and often used falsely, but there are a few considerations: acidic weapons that eat up armor, not killing an opponent but weakening the armour to allow your marksmen to pierce it. Also toxins and poisons, which are usually modeled with DoT come to mind, but they could instead have effect that weaken the opponent. Maybe hinder their eyesight

or coordination.

Splash damage definitely should take into consideration damage. It should also have multipler AOEs with varying effects. Real shrapnel comes to mind, i.e. 360 degree projectile storm. Want to make each projectile explode? Sure! How about make them penetrate extra and have really long radius? Why not, though you'll be risking friendly fire. Maybe lace them with poison? Maybe a nade could instead act as a remote camera extending your fow to where you throw them. The new XCOM had this.

And regarding penetration of actual obstacles, it's basically a matter of execution and consideration of drawbacks. Sure, it's pretty boring if you make it a boolean variable to pierce through anything, but if you spend time on a detailed penetration schema, you might have projectiles easily penetrate some obstacles while others would be more difficult to penetrate. Maybe have the projectiles bounce off ufo surfaces etc. and cause some unpredictable chaos.

Sure, all the above would be more difficult to balance and work out the kinks, but I believe it's also more rewarding that way. The linear +1 route is the easy way. It's also less prone to problems, so I understand why someone would want to go for it. Nothing wrong with a safe bet. It's just that for some people it's simply very very boring.

[Gauddlike]

I imagine a lot of players will likely look at a nice wide array of possible weapons with varying abilities, different damage properties, assorted ranges and whatever other differences you can cram in and just pick the one that works best in the majority of situations or is the most easily used to abuse the AI and other mechanics.

The most common tip to new players of Jagged Alliance 2 with its large array of weapons appears to be 'just pick something with long range and easy to replace ammunition' as a vaguely related example.

Another that springs to mind was one of the UFO: Afterthingy series had varied weapons and the best option was usually to stick with the ballistic type weapons that were the middle ground.

I like the fact that the Xenonaut weapon tiers are primarily role based and that the weapons are generally balanced to fit the role they fulfil.

I don't really care that earlier tiers are replaced by later tiers as the roles are the most important thing, the progression is secondary in this system.

I am not saying the current system is perfect but it does the job.

There are other ways to do it and they would all have advantages and disadvantages but that really is where mods come in.

Everyone will not be happy with the official version no matter how it works but everyone can pick (or create) the mod that bests suits them.

I have not played many of the weapon tier change mods for long so far, few of them have made changes that appeal to me, which I think demonstrates just how personal this subject is.

I keep looking at them though in case someone manages to capture my interest.