Jump to content

POLL: Auto-resolve battles


Do you want the option to auto-resolve some battles if you so choose?  

93 members have voted

  1. 1. Do you want the option to auto-resolve some battles if you so choose?

    • Yes
      50
    • No
      43


Recommended Posts

Since my previous thread on this topic derailed and was basically just filled with back and forth arguing, i decided to make a poll to finally get to the bottom of this issue.

Why would anyone want such a feature, some may ask? Maybe it's a really easy battle and you don't feel like wasting your energy on it, or maybe you just played 10 battles in a row and are tired of combat and want to play around some more on the geo-scape? Maybe you just shot down a lot of UFO's simultaneously, or the aliens decided to launch loads of terror missions, and you don't want to play so many battles in a row? Whatever your reason, i think an auto-resolve feature would be greatly appreciated by a majority of players. Sometimes you just don't want to play a particular battle for any number of reasons. And in those situations an auto-resolve feature would be really great.

So, dear community, do you want an option to auto-resolve battles if you just can't be bothered to play a particular battle?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted yes because it's optional and can't hurt. Just because I don't want to do it is no reason to say 'no'.

It is a reason to say no.

If someone asks you if you want something and you don't want it then no is the only answer you should give :P

The question was if YOU wanted that feature, not if you thought someone else might.

Having 50 votes for yes because 48 of them thought someone else may like it is a bad thing because then you get a skewed view of the actual popularity of an idea.

I just generally don't like the idea so am voting no.

My basic reasons are:

I know I wouldn't use it because those troops are mine.

I don't want to hand them over to a random number generator and see if it allows them to survive or not.

I want to be attached to those troops and win by using them to the best of their, and my, abilities rather than playing Risk where you send 10 counters towards the enemies 8 counters and hope the dice land right.

I also think that if you don't want to play a battle then don't send troops to it.

You don't need to play every single mission unless you enjoy the ground combat or are trying to scrape together cash and materials for your R&D people.

If you don't want to play those missions then you should not get the equipment etc as if you had.

Dev time is valuable and could be better used making sure the game is more enjoyable rather than adding skip buttons to bypass parts of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dev time is valuable and could be better used making sure the game is more enjoyable rather than adding skip buttons to bypass parts of it.

Which is exactly why i and many others want this feature. To make the game more enjoyable.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's true that a dev's main interest should be development time vs. enjoyment added.

Forcing someone to play a boring game to get to the good game is the opposite of adding enjoyment (looking at you Diablo 3)

Auto-resolve is not a big deal to add and would add enjoyment for certain people.

Of course, if the devs don't want to add Auto-resolve I'm sure a modder will so everyone would be happy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Having 50 votes for yes because 48 of them thought someone else may like it is a bad thing because then you get a skewed view of the actual popularity of an idea.

Probably should have had option 3: Don't care either way.

If seeing an auto-resolve makes you angry then pick no.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No, I'm against it.

In the games where I've found it useful, ie, the Total War Series, I've only used it if:

1) I've got such an overwhelming number of troops that I'm certain to win (occasionally requires a reload if the RNG stuffs up) so it is saving me time.

2) I'm certain to lose, in which case it's a time saver (although due to the RNG, can occasionally result in odd things like a single unit of elite infantry or cavalry besting an 1000+ man army).

The second of those clauses only applies when I've got no option but to fight.

Xenonauts will never force me into a position where I've got to fight as you have the choice (outside of base invasions) of where to send your troops and interceptors, it'll also never put me in a position where I'm either vastly outnumbered or vastly outnumber the opponent.

Edit: Should point out Chris was musing about a "nuke from orbit" option on crash sites. This will allow you do not do the battle, but obviously you'll get no loot from it.

Edited by Buzzles
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably should have had option 3: Don't care either way.

If seeing an auto-resolve makes you angry then pick no.

I don't think what you quoted comes across as angry does it?

I was pointing out that the vote asks if you want this feature, not if you think others will want it.

If you don't care either way then not voting yes or no is probably the reasonable response.

I would prefer the game to be balanced so that the sort of situation where this feature would be useful is rare.

If it was decided to add it then it wouldn't make me angry or annoy me.

The question the OP posed was do you want the option to auto resolve battles, which was the question I answered and gave my reasons for.

If someone wants to skip parts of the game by not assaulting certain downed craft they already can, they are not being forced to go through a boring game in order to play a good one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't think what you quoted comes across as angry does it?

I was referring to gamers in general and not you specifically.

Having a 3rd option gives you a more accurate representation of user opinion.

Not voting would skew the results as well, if you have 50/50 yes and no but it turns out only 1% of users actually wanted the feature and 99% didn't want or didn't care you wouldn't know.

Edited by spinaljack
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted yes because it's optional and can't hurt. Just because I don't want to do it is no reason to say 'no'.

I agree with you yet I voted no. There's no real reason why anyone would be actively opposed to it since, as you said, it doesn't hurt so the "no" option is kinda pointless when interpreted literally. By voting no I'm basically saying that I don't need the option and don't care whether it exists or not.

Adding auto-resolve is still an investment of time/money so, imo, the poll should show the relative number of people who truly want it, not those who want it + those who don't really care either way. It's not worth it to make the investment for those who are indifferent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going with the non existent "abstain" on this one. While I don't find fault with the reasons the OP has, I do think there are many, many things I'd rather see in the game first.

The other thread mentioned this as the devs being "encouraged to implement this most vital of features."

I really don't see it as "vital" and I'd rather see time spent on any number of the points raised in the Geopolitical Mods put in before it. Or anything else that adds to the gameplay value of what's there.

Not to say I'd moan if it appeared. The Debug mode had an auto resolve, so perhaps it's a quick win for the devs.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a reason to say no.

If someone asks you if you want something and you don't want it then no is the only answer you should give :P

The question was if YOU wanted that feature, not if you thought someone else might.

Having 50 votes for yes because 48 of them thought someone else may like it is a bad thing because then you get a skewed view of the actual popularity of an idea.

I just generally don't like the idea so am voting no.

My basic reasons are:

I know I wouldn't use it because those troops are mine.

I don't want to hand them over to a random number generator and see if it allows them to survive or not.

I want to be attached to those troops and win by using them to the best of their, and my, abilities rather than playing Risk where you send 10 counters towards the enemies 8 counters and hope the dice land right.

I also think that if you don't want to play a battle then don't send troops to it.

You don't need to play every single mission unless you enjoy the ground combat or are trying to scrape together cash and materials for your R&D people.

If you don't want to play those missions then you should not get the equipment etc as if you had.

Dev time is valuable and could be better used making sure the game is more enjoyable rather than adding skip buttons to bypass parts of it.

My opinion is essentially this - especially since there are plenty of other more beneficial game components that the developers could add instead, that I would much rather. And I mean, the ground combat is the meat of the game - that's basically all I play it for, as well as a little base-/research-managing on the side

EDIT: Oh and uh, unless they took the route Creative Assembly took with the Total War games, which was to make the auto-resolve less efficient than what the player would generally be able to do, and make it approximately as good or even slightly better than some players' abilities, some players might see no incentive of doing it themselves, as the auto-resolve would have just as good odds, if not slightly better. (depending on the player's skill, as I mentioned)

On the other hand, if they did make it like the TW games, you would never want to do it, as you would likely lose good men that you otherwise may've been able to save. I'm not against adding auto-resolve as such, but well, I just don't really think that this is the kind of game it should be in/would be easily added into, and I think there are better things the devs could do with their time

Edited by Major Isoor
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No if the game has faster animation options for battlescape missions like XCOM where you can control the speed of the game and the alien turns arent slow either, then Im ok without autoresolve. I mean the walking speed of Aliens and Operatives, shooting speed too.

Yes only if Xenonauts hasn't have speed options and is a slooooooooooooooooooooooooooow game.

I played XCOM for so long, I play like a fast computer, bam bam bam clear, no casulties! I am a master hehehehehehe night missions are a different story, I love focusing on those lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No is what im voting for. for two reasons: one i feel its already in the game, if you shoot down a ship and don't want to do a mission then just don't go to it, becuase you shot it down it won't effect anything.

and two i feel the system would be abused. people could just get a bunch of rookies to go in, get heavy losses but come out with some nice equipment to play with. if you want to stuff for research you should go in yourself. its a give and give situation and not something that the player should be allowed to skip.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if the game has faster animation options for battlescape missions like XCOM where you can control the speed of the game and the alien turns arent slow either, then Im ok without autoresolve. I mean the walking speed of Aliens and Operatives, shooting speed too.

Yes please, waiting for long hidden movement phases is such a snore. Thank goodness for alt-tab.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I voted for it, because although I won't use it personally, I don't see why it would be gamebreaking to have one. If you don't want to auto-resolve a battle, you don't have to.

Then you have really misrepresented your vote. The question isn't if you would be ok with it in the game, it if you want/would use it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Voted yes. It'd be an okay addition, especially for air combat, unless that thing gets some serious tweaks that make it something more than just a dull samey thing over and over again.

In ground combat against the same UFO over and over again the terrain changes, which along with different spawns make the encounters more/less hard and varied (along with different races, with different gear layouts).

Once you shot down one UFO of some specific type without losses, you can shoot down that exact same UFO with the exact same strat, every single time, with the same outcome.

EU air combat was samey thing over and over again certainly, but atleast it took a lot shorter time to complete, with less hassle.

Edited by Kaguya
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think this would only work if you knew for sure you could overpower the enemy, atm I haft to inter-vein in every battle or it will be a total loss. Perhaps when new aircraft and weapon systems are added (there are only 3 air crafts in-game atm, 2 are combat) then this would be a nice option but as it is now, you would stand no chance of surviving a auto-resolve combat situation in-air without heavy losses. I hate buying/building more jets, costs a fortune.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...