General V24.6 Feedback

[Grobobobo]

For some context, I'm a reboot XCOM Veteran with over 2000 combined hours in both XEW and X2, I've also played Xenonatuts on Insane and X-Division on NG+2, so generally, I'm pretty experienced with the genre. I've finally managed to get my hands on the copy, and here are my general thoughts regarding the current state of the game:

The QOL:

• The UX in this game is so much better than in its predescessor it's insane. Interceptors automatically leading ufos instead of having to do it manually, Being able to keep seeing an enemy after breaking off los, UI improvements, there's so much.
• One feature I'd like to talk about are health bars. X1 Insane had not only max Hp for aliens hidden, but also their damage taken. I had very mixed feelings about this. On one hand, it was frankly obnoxious. Having to remember alien tankiness from memory was really dumb. I used to keep a spreadsheet with alien stats dug up from game files that was used both as a reminder on how an alien is tanky in general, but was used to calculate what's the % chance the alien would die from the next shot. Needles to say, that was very tedious and very hostile UX wise. On the other hand, it DID give a degree of uncertantity in missions, which made it slightly more tense. Honestly, I hope HP display just becomes a seperate setting instead of being tied to difficulty, with users leaving it off if they want a more immersive experience, but turning it on if they prefer the more tryhardy approach.

AIR COMBAT

• The first thing that's immediately noticable is that there's simply much less of it. Some missions now generate without needing to crash a plane in the first place, you can realistically build far fewer interceptors etc etc. Despite the fact that I've kinda liked the air game in x1 and LOVED it in X-Div, I feel like this is a good change, because it was just too common, so it became repetitive quickly. That said, I still feel it's too trivial 90% of the time.
• In X1, you practically spammed foxtrots because they instakilled every aircraft without really commiting, and enemy craft that could dodge could just be autoresolved away (even when it didn't sometimes, you could just retreat without losing any of your interceptors, fighter type UFO's don't have bounties anyway). This doesn't really feel different here, you still pretty much lock in to aircraft that matters and then it dies.I'd suggest taking even more inspiration from XDIV on how to make air game challenging in a fun way, but I know for sure that some people really don't like the air game. Perhaps it would be a good idea to have 2 seperate difficulty levels for air game and ground game?
• The plane deployment zone is way too big, you can almost instantly get your torpedoes in range.
• Having to individually build interceptor upgrades makes it feel like you actually need do invest in the air game now, and the increased customizability is definitely a step in the right direction.

GROUND COMBAT

• I LOVE the increased enemy counts across the board. In X1, at the start you were fighting like 4 enemies for the whole map, which was kind of obnoxious because the map was barren but every single one of those enemies could one-shot you from across the map, so you had to advance very slowly. This is completely different, 8 enemies, but with much lower range feels so much more fun. Actually, the engagement ranges feel lower across the board now, You can't shoot across an entire map anymore, and I love it.
• That said, 10 soldier dropship still feels a bit overkill, i can easily do most early missions in the squad of 6, let alone 8. What's the reasoning behind increasing the base squad size?
• It may be placebo due to the game becoming 3D, but LOS feel a lot more intuitive now. in X1 99% of deaths were caused by getting shot from a place that looked like being LOS blocked thought I was protected from, or my soldiers not being able to shoot where i thought they could shoot. this hasn't happened yet, which makes the gameplay far less frustrating.
• The new mission objectives feel amazing and are genuinely great for variety. But trying to go for more than 5 pods in abductions is not worth it at all, it's very risky and the reward itself is meager (3 alloys is a joke). The optional objectives should be a lot more rewarding.
• Unlike the hunter scout car, mars is a lot more viable, mostly because of its reduced size. Good job there.
• I still feel like close range weapons like shotguns are just not worth using, it's just not worth the risk to try to get close, and they are actually pretty inconsistent at that range.

EQUIPMENT

• Mag weapons are trash. I know that they are meant to effectively be a Tier 1.5 with lasers being Tier 2 and Plasma being tier 3, but they currently feel like Tier 1.15 at best while also being actually quite expensive (especially the lmg lol).
• On the other hand, lasers feel insanely strong but also have very inconsistent stats. The accuracy bonus for Snipers is massive and mag cap penalty is none, but rifles get almost no accuracy bonus but their mag cap is reduced by 75%?
• Armor Destruction is more effective than armor mitigation, 5 mitigation is nothing compared to 8 shred lasers give.

Here's my proposal on how to rework the tiers:
Mag: +20% damage, +10 mitigation
Lasers: +35% damage, +10% accuracy, 0 armor mitigation, +8 armor destruction, -60-75% clip size.

This should give magnetic weapons a better use case while still making lasers clearly better because holy shit the armor destruction is strong. Emphasizing the laser weapons's weakness should also make it more distinct.
I used the laser rifles a lot, the super small mag makes for an interesting drawback with the additional weight of cells and having to mind your shots (although reloading could be more TU consuming, 20 TU is kind of a joke), and I feel like other weapons should get a restriction like that. Laser SR in particular is currently overpowered.

• I kinda like how long repair time makes upgrading the fighter plating desirable.
• The current iteration of shield is a tad weird. I completely understand the need for the change, but:

1) It means that you shouldn't balance alien weapon damage by difficulty levels. Current iteration on shield would turn you into a terminator on easy and be completely worthless on insane due to how the damage interacts with armor.
2) It's too weak. Especially the upgrade which is a joke (up to 25 armor?lol). I also don't get why is there a 20% chance for the shield to not work at all, sounds really bad.

GEOSCAPE

• Establishing a second base feels like shooting yourself in the foot, because your income is not as dependent on UFO's, and it costs a LOT. I'm not sure how to feel about that, It does streamline your strategy, but it compensates by the base layout being a lot more complex.
• The stress mechanic is not working at all, although that's probably known.

I was originally not sure on whether to look forward to the release, but now I absolutely do. The game is a blast so far.

[Chris]

Thanks for your thoughts, I'm glad you've enjoyed playing the game - it's nice to hear that there's enough here for a veteran player of X1 to sink their teeth into.

This is a long post so I'll grab a moment to read it and reply properly in the next couple of days.

[Grobobobo]

Well, it's obviously not very hard, but it's still impressive how a bunch of small mechanical changes like global engagement range reduction can freshen up the gameplay (On top of Vastly superior QOL eliminating a lot of frustration). I'd say air game is the most lackluster at the moment and needs the "biggest" mechanic extension, but I know that's controversial - I know that some people would not like it being more complex.

[Komandos]

3 hours ago, Grobobobo said:

That said, 10 soldier dropship still feels a bit overkill, i can easily do most early missions in the squad of 6, let alone 8. What's the reasoning behind increasing the base squad size?

If we estimate approximately the probability of the death of the player's soldiers and the probability of the death of alien soldiers, then with the same number of troops, the available AI, and not very cunning tactics of the player: the loss ratio averages 1:16. That is: in any case, the player will think that either there are too few aliens, or the player has too many soldiers.

(Half of the aliens are passively sitting in UFOs, so the probability that the aliens will be the first to identify the player's soldiers is two times lower. Alien soldiers walk alone, and the player's soldiers walk in tight groups (4-8), so alien soldiers have 4-8 less chances to destroy the enemy from the first turn. Since the player's soldiers use shields and shelters more often than the alien soldiers, the probability of hitting the player's soldiers is twice as low. We summarize and in the end we get that the loss ratio is approximately 1:16-1:32.)

Equal chances can be obtained only by leaving one player soldier and one alien soldier in the game.

However, in order for the battle to be dynamic, there must be a sufficient number of alien soldiers on the landscape so that every turn (turn) from the player was a battle, not a search.

 

P.S. The battles in which the player can afford to lose 1-2 soldiers and the battles in which the player can afford to lose 8-10 soldiers are very different in terms of the tension and emotions of the battle.

Edited November 8, 2022 by Komandos

[Grobobobo]

That sounds like an argument against increasing the squad size, not for it.

[Komandos]

10 hours ago, Grobobobo said:

That sounds like an argument against increasing the squad size, not for it.

Tactics at the level of 6 characters exist in almost all RPG games. Starting with "Fallout", "Baldurs Gate", "Arcanum" and ending with modern games. The role-playing system of these games and the game world itself are worked out better than Xenonauts.

And if I have to make a choice: to develop 6 characters in Xenonauts or to develop 6 characters in RPG games, then the choice will not be in favor of Xenonauts. Xenonauts do not have a good role-playing system of abilities, skills and character characteristics for tactics of 6-8 people.

But there are much fewer tactics for 8-12 (or more) characters. This gaming niche is not so densely filled.

(The fact that the original (canon) UFO: 1-2 X-COM: 3 Apocalypsys were platoon tactics, and, apart from them, there are no more turn-based platoon tactics (12-26) - I have already said many times. This is the only unoccupied gaming niche that gives the player such gaming sensations (experience) that other games are no longer able to give.)

 

In general: For part of the tactical battles, the game should increase the number of aliens by 1.5-2 times. The complexity of the battles should be different. There should be missions where the player is "resting", and there should be missions where it is "difficult" for him.

Edited November 9, 2022 by Komandos

[Twigg]

This game is so different to any of the rpgs you mentioned that there is basically no overlap other than how many player characters there are. By your logic there are many tactics games with 10+ characters, they are sports games.

One of the great aspects of a game like this is the tension that comes from knowing defeat (both on the tactical and strategic layer) is just around the corner and you need to constantly play catch up to the growing alien menace. That tension works best in relatively short missions and is one of the reasons I love the reasons I love the new mission type, it is the perfect palette cleanser. Significantly increasing the alien and soldier count would turn that tension into exhaustion for many players and wouldn't open up things much tactically imo.

[Komandos]

1 hour ago, Twigg said:

By your logic there are many tactics games with 10+ characters, they are sports games.

 

Sports games are sports games. In sports games, no one kills rivals.

And if, according to the rules of a sports game, a team consists of 1 or 2 or 3 or 10 people, then you can neither reduce nor increase this number.

Tactical battles are tactical battles where the main task is to destroy the enemy. And if the tactics are at the squad level or the tactics are at the platoon level, then such battles require either a squad of soldiers or a platoon of soldiers.

[Komandos]

1 hour ago, Twigg said:

Significantly increasing the alien and soldier count would turn that tension into exhaustion for many players and wouldn't open up things much tactically imo.

In UFO:1-2, a player could take 26 soldiers on a combat mission, but no one forced the player to take 26 soldiers on a combat mission when it was necessary to capture a UFO scout with a single alien on board. Even in such a complex game as UFO: 2, there were only 4-10 combat missions for the entire game that required the maximum number of player soldiers.

But these were the most interesting and intense battles. The game did not allow the player to get bored and tired because the battles were diverse: light battles (against 1-12 (one) aliens, medium battles (against 12-24 aliens), heavy battles (against 24 or more aliens).

The option that you offer: these are exclusively monotonous battles against 1-12 aliens, which do not allow the player to experience a more diverse experience.

 

[Komandos]

1 hour ago, Twigg said:

One of the great aspects of a game like this is the tension that comes from knowing defeat (both on the tactical and strategic layer) is just around the corner and you need to constantly play catch up to the growing alien menace. That tension works best in relatively short missions and is one of the reasons I love the reasons I love the new mission type, it is the perfect palette cleanser.

There are many ways to create tension in the game for the player. But the player gets tired of constant tension. Sometimes a player needs unusual and uncomplicated combat missions to relax, to take a break from the tension of previous experiences.

[Grobobobo]

I'm not exactly arguing for 6 people squads, It's more of a minimum soldiers you could take without gimping yourself. However, 10 soldiers at that point in the game is completely redundant and does not Increase tactical complexity at all. It has nothing to do with difficulty, I could just have those 2 sit in the back of the dropship because there isn't good enough cover for them on the map and the mission difficulty wouldn't really change. Increasing enemies is fine and all, but you don't want to make the early game overwhelming either. 10/12 units in x1 was fine because it was a dropship upgrade you got in the midgame/lategame where you were fighting more enemies, in x2 the dropship upgrade feels unnescessary since you've already got so many AND vehicles only take 1 spot from 2 (not that vehicles were worth using in the first place)

[Komandos]

1 hour ago, Grobobobo said:

However, 10 soldiers at that point in the game is completely redundant and does not Increase tactical complexity at all.

The problem is not the difficulty of the game, which we get by having 10 soldiers under our leadership. The problem is the variety of tactical situations that the player faces.

When there is only one soldier under the leadership of the player, there are not many tasks that the player solves: shoot, hide, go forward.

When there are a lot of soldiers under the player's leadership, then there are tasks for their optimal interaction.

One soldier plays the role of a scout, another soldier plays the role of a machine gunner, a third soldier plays the role of a sniper. One group of soldiers moves from one flank, another group of soldiers moves from the other flank, the third group of soldiers moves in the center.

Such tactics cannot be implemented if the player has less than 9-12 soldiers.

1 hour ago, Grobobobo said:

It has nothing to do with difficulty, I could just have those 2 sit in the back of the dropship because there isn't good enough cover for them on the map and the mission difficulty wouldn't really change.

There are not enough shelters, because:

- the radius of visibility of soldiers is 25 tiles;

- the effective range of most weapons is approximately equal to the radius of visibility;

- the firepower of one soldier is not enough to destroy one alien in one turn.

As a result: the whole group of soldiers is concentrated in a radius of 25 tiles around the detected alien. 

There really aren't many shelters at such a small distance from the alien.

And given the fact that the range of movement of the player's soldiers and alien soldiers can exceed the range of visibility (equal to 25 tiles) and reach 100/3 = 33 tiles, then there is basically no reliable shelter on the landscape.

The only way out of this situation is to make the radius of vision of the soldiers more than the maximum range of movement in one turn.

If the maximum long movement of the soldier is 100/3 = 33 tiles, then the radius of vision of the soldiers should be at least 34-35 tiles.

[Emily_F]

I feel the issue of squad size could be easily overcome by having different missions that you sent different size squads with different capabilities to. I still say that, graphics aside, Xcom Apocalypse was by far the best game of all the series (including the spin offs)

[Komandos]

1 hour ago, Emily_F said:

I feel the issue of squad size could be easily overcome by having different missions that you sent different size squads with different capabilities to.

If the player is provided with several types of vehicles:

1. Very fast, but not very spacious air transport.

2. Very spacious, but very slow transport.

The player is forced to make a choice: to arrive at the task very quickly, but with a small number of soldiers, or to arrive at the task with the probability of being late, but with a large number of soldiers. It's similar to how a player makes a choice by shooting aliens. To make one shot, but with great accuracy, or to make several shots, but with little accuracy.

Unfortunately, there are no urgent tasks in the game, for which the player's transport must fly fast in order to be in time.

As an option: only one type of weapon (laser, magnetic, plasma) is most effective against each type of aliens. The player has several tactical groups of soldiers, each of which specializes in one kind of aliens.

We can introduce additional characteristics for soldiers into the game, and, depending on these characteristics, each soldier will act as efficiently as possible (for example, have a movement bonus) only in certain biomes: forest, desert, tundra, city. 

We can add medals to soldiers "UFO Assault No. 1, No. 2, No. 3, etc.". If a soldier participated in the assault of "UFO No. 1" several times, then his reaction inside "UFO No. 1" increases. Morale also increases when storming "UFO No. 1". The stress level decreases.

I think it will be useful to divide all combat tasks by mission types and keep statistics on how many times a particular soldier participated in a mission of this type. The more often a soldier participated in a mission of this type, the more bonuses he will receive when completing missions of this type, and the less stress he will receive during the task. This can be realized with the help of medals.

Now medals practically do not give tangible bonuses that seriously affect the ability of soldiers.

The number of medals can be increased.

[Komandos]

On 11/8/2022 at 4:44 PM, Grobobobo said:

Actually, the engagement ranges feel lower across the board now, You can't shoot across an entire map anymore, and I love it.

The closer your soldiers can shoot, the closer to each other they have to move to be able to focus fire on one target.

And the lower the radius of vision and the range of weapon damage, the less profitable any position (shelter) will be. The battle resembles a journey in a very thick fog, where first of all it is not tactics that are important, but the reaction and numerical advantage of the crowd.

[Grobobobo]

14 hours ago, Komandos said:

One soldier plays the role of a scout, another soldier plays the role of a machine gunner, a third soldier plays the role of a sniper. One group of soldiers moves from one flank, another group of soldiers moves from the other flank, the third group of soldiers moves in the center.

Such tactics cannot be implemented if the player has less than 9-12 soldiers.

You absolutely do not need 12 soldiers for that. 8 is enough to basically have 2 of each role that you'd want.

14 hours ago, Komandos said:

There are not enough shelters, because:

- the radius of visibility of soldiers is 25 tiles;

- the effective range of most weapons is approximately equal to the radius of visibility;

- the firepower of one soldier is not enough to destroy one alien in one turn.

As a result: the whole group of soldiers is concentrated in a radius of 25 tiles around the detected alien. 

There really aren't many shelters at such a small distance from the alien.

And given the fact that the range of movement of the player's soldiers and alien soldiers can exceed the range of visibility (equal to 25 tiles) and reach 100/3 = 33 tiles, then there is basically no reliable shelter on the landscape.

The only way out of this situation is to make the radius of vision of the soldiers more than the maximum range of movement in one turn.

If the maximum long movement of the soldier is 100/3 = 33 tiles, then the radius of vision of the soldiers should be at least 34-35 tiles.

That's not going to solve anything because vision range is a separate thing from engagement range, so what if you can see the alien from far away if you can't shoot him anyway? and I like that you can't, the long engagement ranges were stupid in x1, Xdiv reducing them for earlier phases were one of my favorite things about the mod. and regardless of engagement ranges, UFO's still remain as the worst offenders due to the cramped nature of them.

Well, it's not really that important either way. I think both reducing the starting squad size and increasing the early game enemy count is valid.

14 hours ago, Emily_F said:

I feel the issue of squad size could be easily overcome by having different missions that you sent different size squads with different capabilities to. I still say that, graphics aside, Xcom Apocalypse was by far the best game of all the series (including the spin offs)

Maybe, but no player in the current state of the game will sacrifice precious hangar space for multiple dropships.

[Komandos]

1 hour ago, Grobobobo said:

You absolutely do not need 12 soldiers for that. 8 is enough to basically have 2 of each role that you'd want.

In the game "Diablo" and one person is enough to clear the dungeons from the enemy army. In the Fallout game, all tactical battles could be won by one character. Maybe 6-8 soldiers is still too much for one player? What do you think? Reduce the number of soldiers needed for the battle - to a single person, so as not to strain the player with unnecessary management?

Edited November 10, 2022 by Komandos

[Komandos]

1 hour ago, Grobobobo said:

That's not going to solve anything because vision range is a separate thing from engagement range, so what if you can see the alien from far away if you can't shoot him anyway?

What's the problem so that I can't increase the range of the weapon? What's wrong with the fact that soldiers can be farther apart from each other in order to support each other with firepower?

[Komandos]

53 minutes ago, Komandos said:

Maybe, but no player in the current state of the game will sacrifice precious hangar space for multiple dropships.

Four shuttles at once on the same military base, so as not to equip the shuttle before each special battle in a new way.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Komandos

[Emily_F]

14 hours ago, Komandos said:

If the player is provided with several types of vehicles:

1. Very fast, but not very spacious air transport.

2. Very spacious, but very slow transport.

The player is forced to make a choice: to arrive at the task very quickly, but with a small number of soldiers, or to arrive at the task with the probability of being late, but with a large number of soldiers. It's similar to how a player makes a choice by shooting aliens. To make one shot, but with great accuracy, or to make several shots, but with little accuracy.

Unfortunately, there are no urgent tasks in the game, for which the player's transport must fly fast in order to be in time.

 

I approve of this idea, though as someone else implied in this thread, there is already a lot of pressure on space in bases and this could require a fair bit of dev work to overcome.

[Alienkiller]

Haven´t read that Feedback fully, only overflow it about less time.

From what I could read the unimportant Army-Group-Thing comes to often. That have nothing to search in that Alien-Human-Gerne-Strategy-Games. It´s not in the Original Round-Based X-COM, new Round-Based XCOM, Roundbased Phoenix Point, Roundbased UFO-ET-Series, all roundbased Fan-Projects and roundbased Xenonauts-Series.

If you play an Standard-Army Game (like the JA-Series, C & C-Series, Hoi-Series, Total-War-Series) then it´s free to implement.

 

What the other Parts belongs I could play so far:

The Game get much better now with the medium Rework / Refit it get from the last big Version [UFO-Pedia, Graphics, Maps, manually Airfights, Ground Combat with the new Damage-System, the Armors / Vests / Suits for the Soldiers and other medium and smaller Parts] that I could test out already incl. a lot of Reading to find spelling errors.

Where I can agree is that the upgraded Standard-Weapons (with the Magnetic Accelerator) are still weak. Laser Weapons and higher Tier-Things I hadn´t in the R & D after that Version come out. So I can´t say anything about that.

The 360 Days-Limit is to short (there I would suggest to make it minimum 2 Years or 2,5 Years like it is done in the UFO ET-Series). There was an other Point I have in mind, but I can´t remember about getting irretaded.

Update to the forgotten Points:

There are sadly to much automatic Researches again (like the UFOs, Autopsies). If it can´t get done to make them manually like in UFO ET-Series / UFO AI-Fan Project (manually Research) or XCOM (with Interrogations or similar) then such automatic Researches get done after a few Days for smaller automatic Researches (like Autopsies etc.) as well as 2 Weeks for bigger automatic Reseraches (like UFOs).

An other Point is the Geoscape. There were Outposts and similar, which made it very interesstering in prevouis Versions. That are a must have not to have to much big Bases which costs a lot of money. I personaly like the 1 big Main-Base-System and some smaller Bases (like in UFO 2 ET the small Cruiser-Aircraft-Carrier and secondary Bases which are more Outposts then Bases).

The several big Bases-System haven´t worked in old X-COM and simlar Fan-Base-Games of that Gerne.

The last Point I have in Mind again are the Base-Internal-Buildings. In the first Betas were a cool System to send Scientists, Workers f. e. in different Parts to test f. e. something new out, upgrade the Radar with new Elements and similar. That´s an very cool System from new XCOM which is an must have too.

With that smaller / medium Parts in again the direct Rivals (new XCOM with DLCs, Phoenix Point with DLCs, UFO ET-Series-Refits to the Maximum) can be overflown in some Parts. If they are not there, then it´s an Head to Head race or Xenonatus 2 get overflown.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Alienkiller

[Komandos]

40 minutes ago, Emily_F said:

I approve of this idea, though as someone else implied in this thread, there is already a lot of pressure on space in bases and this could require a fair bit of dev work to overcome.

It is enough to increase the number of places in the living quarters and there will be a place for an additional hangar.

[Grobobobo]

4 hours ago, Komandos said:

What's the problem so that I can't increase the range of the weapon? What's wrong with the fact that soldiers can be farther apart from each other in order to support each other with firepower?

Because then the game becomes a snipefest on both sides where aliens and the player abuse squadsight and everything that's spotted dies. It's good to be limited by range so you can't clear the whole map from 1 spot and have to advance, and every alien on the map doesn't unload on your soldiers as soon as you get spotted. X1 was kinda like that, and it was pretty bad.

4 hours ago, Komandos said:

Four shuttles at once on the same military base, so as not to equip the shuttle before each special battle in a new way.

I said current state of THIS game, this looks like a modded XDIV. and even then, just because you can, doesn't mean that it's a smart idea.

[Komandos]

51 minutes ago, Grobobobo said:

Because then the game becomes a snipefest on both sides where aliens and the player abuse squadsight and everything that's spotted dies.

the "squad's sight" exists regardless of the range of the weapon. With a small visibility radius and a short firing range, the player also uses "squadsight", the only difference is that the soldiers are now forced to move in a denser formation. A denser formation does not allow effective use of shelters located on the ground. (Soldiers are constantly forced to neglect shelters in favor of a more dense arrangement of soldiers.) A YouTube video shows how players line up ranks and "phalanxes" of their soldiers in order to achieve a "squad sight" for the largest number of their soldiers.

And a small radius of visibility increases the time needed to survey the entire landscape.

Edited November 10, 2022 by Komandos

[Komandos]

58 minutes ago, Grobobobo said:

just because you can, doesn't mean that it's a smart idea.

Anything that makes the game interesting for the player is a reasonable idea. We play for the sake of interest and a lot of unusual (diverse) opportunities (situations) that the game can create.