Milestone 1 Balance Thread

[bifohe6676]

@bonerstorm In regards to Alienium Generators:

You claimed that your base is optimal, and you said it yourself, you could put in 1-2 other buildings instead, which means your base is not optimal, the upgrade cost is almost trivial in the grand scheme of things.

(EDIT: Even more space is saved the more power you need to generate, so if we consider power-hungry late game buildings the power-generation-density-increase might even become more and more important later on.)

Save two slots right now which is an entire hangar, if you don't think another jet/dropship out of the same base is a reason in itself for the investment, on top of all the other things you could build (more anything is always better), I don't know what to tell you further.

As others have said, you seem pretty sure of claiming your ways are best and optimal before thinking things through properly, while I am always open to reading other people's ideas, that is just bad form.

Edited July 30, 2023 by bifohe6676

[DaviddesJ]

On 7/29/2023 at 12:53 AM, bonerstorm said:

I didn't tell you guys this crap because I wanted to show off my e-peen. I'm trying to get a broken mechanic fixed. Get over yourself.

If you keep saying things that are demonstrably wrong then no one’s going to listen to your suggestions about what to change.

[bonerstorm]

On 7/30/2023 at 12:48 AM, Skyfire said:

OK, hit day 180 myself now, so some thoughts (playing on Veteran difficulty):

• Panic is controllable using the old Xenonauts 1 strategy: get extra hangar/radar bases and planes to fill them ASAP, and then everything else is just about keeping pace. I researched Phantoms early-ish (did two or three other techs first, so not a hard rush), but didn't particularly push any other air techs. Skipped the upgraded dropship completely as a test, and didn't really feel the loss. Finished the current content with all regions below 30 panic and two on single digits. The triple-interceptor wing that has been discussed may have been a problem if I'd faced one before getting gauss blasters (it was fine with them), but everything else was a comfortable fight on alenium rockets and accelerated cannons.

This. I also researched a few techs before getting phantoms - the main thing is getting several bases up ASAP so you have global anti-ufo coverage. Very good to hear +1 that the interceptor fight is survivable. Should have put more elbow grease into it before giving up.

23 hours ago, bifohe6676 said:

@bonerstorm In regards to Alienium Generators:

You claimed that your base is optimal, and you said it yourself, you could put in 1-2 other buildings instead, which means your base is not optimal, the upgrade cost is almost trivial in the grand scheme of things.

(EDIT: Even more space is saved the more power you need to generate, so if we consider power-hungry late game buildings the power-generation-density-increase might even become more and more important later on.)

Save two slots right now which is an entire hangar, if you don't think another jet/dropship out of the same base is a reason in itself for the investment, on top of all the other things you could build (more anything is always better), I don't know what to tell you further.

As others have said, you seem pretty sure of claiming your ways are best and optimal before thinking things through properly, while I am always open to reading other people's ideas, that is just bad form.

I did the friggin math for you. It's exactly one extra building slot. Not two. And you have 40 power to spare after that... assuming you can even demolish buildings in your main base, which for whatever reason it wouldn't let me do.

And the upgrade cost is not trivial in the early game, when half a mil can get you a radar station... four hangars... a Phantom... two MARS... 40 soldiers... TWO GENERATORS... Not to mention it costs 50 alenium.

Also, no. Upgraded buildings don't require more power. And if, in the late game, buildings are unlocked with high power requirements... I already told you that I got Alenium Generators in the late midgame anyway. I just said it's a trap early on.

You're really quick to criticize me before doing basic math or READING the basic math I already did for you.

As I already said, I'm not trying to brag about how I'm the best player ever. I'm not. I'm trying to address mechanics that I believe are broken and identify issues in this evolving EA game.

AND I NEVER SAID THIS WAS THE ONLY WAY TO BUILD A BASE FFS.

To quote: "And while I'm at it, here's the optimal base set-up"

This was a throwaway comment I made in a follow-on post because I was bored. If you have a base setup you think is more optimal, please go ahead and post it instead of ineffectually trying to piss on my face.

12 hours ago, DaviddesJ said:

If you keep saying things that are demonstrably wrong then no one’s going to listen to your suggestions about what to change.

One guy demonstrated that you could beat the 3 interceptors by being much better at the dogfight minigame than me, which was good to know. Another guy playing on veteran +1'ed that. I was glad to be proven wrong on that count and look forward to doing better in my next run-through.

To quote: "I didn't exactly mean it's the only way to play and continue the game. I'm saying that, if you play any other way than the one I described, then you're going to very likely (not 100%) be on the verge of losing at least 2 regions to panic by end of content. So the game as a whole isn't broken - just the air combat is janky and the panic mechanic is a bit unbalanced."

To quote again: "If somebody else did better, then I'd be extremely interested to know how the heck they did - considering that AFAIK the only panic reductions aside from dogfights are from hostage rescue."

I asked and somebody delivered. Notably, two guys in this entire thread of people who didn't do as well as them - which includes you.

You didn't demonstrate anything. Because you're just whining instead of posting receipts.

And to quote yet again: "But I'll stand by the contention that the mechanic is broken. If stabilizing panic (which I'm going to arbitrarily define as below 80) is contingent on either doing my thing OR being very good at the janky air combat system, then that's something that needs to be addressed."

[Skitso]

Cleaner's accuracy needs to be decreased from the ~70 down to maybe 50-55. There's no point having a starter enemy be so accurate.

[Skyfire]

On 7/30/2023 at 7:32 PM, bifohe6676 said:

You claimed that your base is optimal, and you said it yourself, you could put in 1-2 other buildings instead, which means your base is not optimal, the upgrade cost is almost trivial in the grand scheme of things.

(EDIT: Even more space is saved the more power you need to generate, so if we consider power-hungry late game buildings the power-generation-density-increase might even become more and more important later on.)

Save two slots right now which is an entire hangar, if you don't think another jet/dropship out of the same base is a reason in itself for the investment, on top of all the other things you could build (more anything is always better), I don't know what to tell you further.

Looking at my day-180 bases, alenium reactors (which I did in fact research) mean I need three reactors instead of four in my main base, and one instead of two in my two satellite bases.

That's $600k build costs saved at the cost of $500k + 50 alenium on the upgrade - effectively I'm 'selling' 50 alenium for $100k. Given that minimum sales price is $4k per unit, that's a pretty bad deal - I'd get twice the return for just selling the alenium even at the minimum price, and more if I hadn't sold much before that.

Saving a few slots is... not really that big a deal. I haven't even filled my primary base completely yet, although I'm very close. Satellite bases literally have half their space still open, so I can just keep throwing down hangars there. Phantoms have the range to provide support to the main base from the satellites if necessary, and worst case I have to let one or two UFOs survive for once.

So overall, I'm going to have to go with @bonerstorm on this one. It's borderline - I'd only need a few more generators before the cost-benefit equation flips - but as things stand right now it would have been more efficient for me to just build extra basic generators than to upgrade. A side benefit there is that I don't need to spend workshop time on the upgrade, so the engineers can keep working on aircraft or gear instead.

[bonerstorm]

4 hours ago, Skyfire said:

That's $600k build costs saved at the cost of $500k + 50 alenium on the upgrade - effectively I'm 'selling' 50 alenium for $100k. Given that minimum sales price is $4k per unit, that's a pretty bad deal - I'd get twice the return for just selling the alenium even at the minimum price, and more if I hadn't sold much before that.

Yep! In the early game, building two generators for less than half a mil is a much better investment and engineer time is often quite precious. It would be a more reasonable upgrade at 250k + 50 alenium, since that would put the resource value and time investment somewhere in the neighborhood of the value it provides. *nudge at @Chris*

6 hours ago, Skitso said:

Cleaner's accuracy needs to be decreased from the ~70 down to maybe 50-55. There's no point having a starter enemy be so accurate.

Why not? Your starting soldiers have 80% accuracy with rifles IIRC.

Cleaners are hard countered by grenades/HEVY's (which will often instakill them) behind cover, snipers at distance and shotty's up close. If you wipe them before they can shoot back, they're not really a threat. This is very doable in the intermediate Cleaner missions if you have a Dragonfly and split into 3 groups of 4 so you can gang up on them 4-on-1 at a time. Having even defender armor means they almost certainly won't one-shot you either.

Worst case scenario, smoke grenades are a thing too.

[Skitso]

40 minutes ago, bonerstorm said:

Why not? Your starting soldiers have 80% accuracy with rifles IIRC.

Cleaners are hard countered by grenades/HEVY's (which will often instakill them) behind cover, snipers at distance and shotty's up close. If you wipe them before they can shoot back, they're not really a threat. This is very doable in the intermediate Cleaner missions if you have a Dragonfly and split into 3 groups of 4 so you can gang up on them 4-on-1 at a time. Having even defender armor means they almost certainly won't one-shot you either.

Worst case scenario, smoke grenades are a thing too.

Well, you don't need to teach your father how to fuck: I know very well how to play Xenonauts. What I mean is that they are the MOST accurate enemy in the game along with wraiths; and contrary to them, Cleaners are the enemy type you fight against almost instantly when the game starts. And that's just not in any way an optimal way to introduce your game to new players. And for the more experienced players, you also need to take into account the difficulty modifier (veteran +120%) which again, make them incredibly accurate enemies to fight against on the second mission of the game.

IMO

Edited July 31, 2023 by Skitso

[bifohe6676]

@bonerstormI think you are still missing the point I (and I assume others) are making.

Your original post literally said this about Alienium Generators (and a whole list of other things):

Quote

Practically useless/trap engineering projects include:

• Guardian armor
• Electro rifle
• Assault shield upgrade
• Actuator module
• Alenium/Fusion Rockets (Vehicles)
• Gauss/Laser Autorifle (Vehicles)
• Alenium Generator
• Upgrades to Missile Battery

As you and @Skyfire have agreed, Alienium Generators free up base slots if you rather want to increase another aspect of your base.

Again, I am not claiming you are forced to take this upgrade, and I agree you are free to skip it if you rather want the materials and cash instead of more slots as you have said.

I am not even going to calculate all the myriads of possible base layouts where maybe the Generators even free 3 or more slots, I could argue about many other things you have listed as awell, but I am not focusing on this single topic.

I think many upgrades should neither be an too-expensive upgrade that is always bad (= "trap") and not an upgrade that is a must-pick (="optimal") because it is unavoidably powerful, but instead allow you to specialize or just increase certain aspects of your base in your current campaign.

For example, if you play so defensive during battles that you really rarely get a lot of wounded, is the surgery upgrade really worth it over the normal medical facility for your campaign?

If your squads are so powerful that you fend off full-scale base attacks really easily, do you really need to spend the upgrade cost, slots and upkeep on the highest tier turrets in your base?

If you have specialized radar-bases that cover the entire globe, do you really need 3 radars in your main base?

Maybe, maybe not, depending on your preferences, but that doesn't make things a useless "trap" in general as in the claim, even in the current version of the game (1.28).

That is something the game should let you and even force you to decide.

That on top of my disagreement with your opinon on Generators and some other things is why I disagree with the notion that your way of playing is the, and again I quote, "optimal" way and every other choice just "traps", even in 1.28.

Maybe you mean "I don't pick upgrades A and B in my current campaign where I don't care about X and Y and rather focus on Z", then by all means do that instead of always claming your single way is the best and everything else is a "useless trap".

After all, if you are forced to make tough decisions in your building/spending choices, that fits right into the rest of the game, it would be quite boring to me if I could easily afford all upgrades with zero drawbacks every single time, so you get everything every single campaign anyway and settle on a single meta-game strategy that kills the replay-value of so many other games.

Edited July 31, 2023 by bifohe6676

[doubleskulls]

I've already got to day 180 on Veteran and have started a new campaign, on commander, and have reached day 87, I am really struggling for cash, which in itself is good, as it really forces me to choose what I want to spend money on. Difficult choices make for good games! 

I think the balance is about right in tactical - commander definitely feels like a big step up from Veteran. Overall tactical missions are tough, and require focus. Any mistake can easily lead to a death (or multiple deaths), and deaths are expensive in lost skills and equipment. The 2 cleaner missions are very tough, but make a nice change of pace from the normal downed UFO missions, so I'm happy with their difficulty. On both of them I succeeded in assassinating the VIP, but lost half my squad doing so, including MARS, which I haven't rebuilt. Next time I'll probably skip Mars altogether. $250k to (re)build is a lot. Maybe this needs to be brought down a bit? $150k maybe, and $75k to replace if you save the wreck?

Smoke maybe a little too effective at stun damage, but that could just be because the AI does not seem to account for it, and will run through it and then stay in the smoke rather than moving out or around it. I'm not even sure its considering it when shooting. Whilst I'm on it, the AI isn't good at exploiting cover, and if it has a target will just run forwards, leaving itself in the open. Sometimes the AI soldiers don't seem to move at all, which seems odd. Even if they are in 'guard' mode I'd expect them to wander a little bit, especially if they've been shot at. 

Grenadiers feel underpowered. First couple of missions (before the Mars) they felt like a reasonable substitute, but I think I'll be better off just carrying grenades and no launcher. Maybe a pistol and/or baton too.  

This run I skipped Mag Weapons, and went straight to lasers. Cash is so tight, next time I'll go accelerated weapons... they are just as good at half the price. My only hesitation is how much money do I 'waste' on accelerated weapons when I switch to advanced. Probably worth having one set of accelerated, then if they are lost, replacing with lasers. 

I do have Heavy Lasers on my interceptors, and that has made a big difference in their ability to take down UFOs. The two Angels or one Phantom can take out a medium. I suspect Accelerated Cannons don't have enough ammo to do the job, and would therefore research Lasers just to get to Heavy Lasers. 

Other than keeping a viable assault team, top of the list for my money is more interceptors, and radar/bases to put them in. I'm going to need at least 12 Phantoms, and to build enough bases/radar to give me coverage of at least 5 sectors, and realistically I'd want all 6. That's going to suck up all my cash, probably right up to day 180. With that in mind, I'm thinking my upgrades are going to be very limited and very focussed. Right now, I'm thinking Advanced Lasers, maybe Alenium Grenades. Gauss weapons when I've got the tech. I can't image much else getting prioritised before I hit the 180 day 'end'.

From the tech there is quite a lot that isn't really needed and could be skipped. Not because the tech isn't interesting or useful but, by and large, its allowing me to upgrade things I don't have the money to upgrade. Its actually making me think once I've got Phantoms, Heavy lasers, Warden Armour and all the cash tech, the most important research may be the interrogation to get the additional damage and training without having to spend money elsewhere, or maybe just let the scientists make money. Plasma Weapons Alenium Explosives and Gauss Weapons will be 'must have' when I can research them. I went to 3 fully occupied labs in the 2nd month, and I'm thinking that was a mistake, and maybe I can get through with 2.  

[bonerstorm]

5 hours ago, bifohe6676 said:

@bonerstormI think you are still missing the point I (and I assume others) are making.

Your original post literally said this about Alienium Generators (and a whole list of other things):

As you and @Skyfire have agreed, Alienium Generators free up base slots if you rather want to increase another aspect of your base.

ONE base slot. ONE. You spend net 300k, 50 alenium and days of engineer time to theoretically save ONE slot in your main base.

That's simply not worth the price of admission in the early game.

And, like I said, the devs could make the cost/benefit argument more compelling if they halved the money cost.

5 hours ago, bifohe6676 said:

I am not even going to calculate all the myriads of possible base layouts where maybe the Generators even free 3 or more slots,

That is not a thing, unless you're talking about more than three bases... Which, like I said, is a thing you can do in the late midgame, but is a waste of money and resources in the early game. Also saving spaces in secondary bases doesn't matter because nobody sane is going to fill them anyway.

There is also no sane base layout where alenium gens will save you more than one space. If you have a full base, you are either using 3 generator slots or 4. That's it.

5 hours ago, bifohe6676 said:

I think many upgrades should neither be an too-expensive upgrade that is always bad (= "trap") and not an upgrade that is a must-pick (="optimal") because it is unavoidably powerful, but instead allow you to specialize or just increase certain aspects of your base in your current campaign.

For example, if you play so defensive during battles that you really rarely get a lot of wounded, is the surgery upgrade really worth it over the normal medical facility for your campaign?

If your squads are so powerful that you fend off full-scale base attacks really easily, do you really need to spend the upgrade cost, slots and upkeep on the highest tier turrets in your base?

Yes. Different playstyles require different strategy, but there is no scenario where Alenium Generators at the current asking price is cost-effective in the early game.

In the late midgame, when you have so much Alenium that you'll never run out and lots of spare engineering capacity and want to build out your secondary bases, it makes sense.

Until then, it is a trap.

5 hours ago, bifohe6676 said:

If you have specialized radar-bases that cover the entire globe, do you really need 3 radars in your main base?

You are limited to 5 bases max in X2, so that's not really a thing.

5 hours ago, bifohe6676 said:

Maybe, maybe not, depending on your preferences, but that doesn't make things a useless "trap" in general as in the claim, even in the current version of the game (1.28).

That is something the game should let you and even force you to decide.

That on top of my disagreement with your opinon on Generators and some other things is why I disagree with the notion that your way of playing is the, and again I quote, "optimal" way and every other choice just "traps", even in 1.28.

Maybe you mean "I don't pick upgrades A and B in my current campaign where I don't care about X and Y and rather focus on Z", then by all means do that instead of always claming your single way is the best and everything else is a "useless trap".

After all, if you are forced to make tough decisions in your building/spending choices, that fits right into the rest of the game, it would be quite boring to me if I could easily afford all upgrades with zero drawbacks every single time, so you get everything every single campaign anyway and settle on a single meta-game strategy that kills the replay-value of so many other games.

And your opinion might be relevant if you had made a logical argument and had actually done the math, like @Skyfire and I did. If, for instance, you had bothered posting an alternative base layout and made an argument as to why yours is better.

But you're just making an emotional argument about how my post, like, generally hurt your feelings or something. Either pick up a calculator or drop your argument.

8 hours ago, Skitso said:

Well, you don't need to teach your father how to fuck: I know very well how to play Xenonauts,

LOL touche! Well explained.

[Skyfire]

4 hours ago, bifohe6676 said:

As you and @Skyfire have agreed, Alienium Generators free up base slots if you rather want to increase another aspect of your base.

Again, I am not claiming you are forced to take this upgrade, and I agree you are free to skip it if you rather want the materials and cash instead of more slots as you have said.

I am not even going to calculate all the myriads of possible base layouts where maybe the Generators even free 3 or more slots, I could argue about many other things you have listed as awell, but I am not focusing on this single topic.

I like math, so I did go off and do some calculations here.

The first break-point where the upgrade can save you two generators in one base is at 501 total power consumption - that needs either four upgraded or six non-upgraded generators.

36 slots are available in a base. I'm going to assume minimum viable hangars in the main base is 4 (dropship + one wing of interceptors), so 8 slots spent there. 4 slots on generators, + 1 on the access lift, leaves 23 slots available to consume power.

3 radars is a no-brainer, as they're by far the most power-hungry building, giving us 180 spent. Spending the remaining 321 power over 20 rooms is... difficult. That's 16.05 power per slot - the only things higher than that (other than radars which we already maxed) are training and med centers (25 each), and defensive batteries. Labs/workshops look close at 15 power, but you need one living quarterss per two of those, so only actually come out at 10 power per slot effective use. Med centers are capped at 1 (useful) per base, training centers need living quarters for troops so only 12.5 per slot effective use, and there's no value in a base that's nothing but defensive batteries (what are you defending at that point...?).

I can't get an actually useful design out of that. Closest is some kind of five quarters, five training, medical + nine batteries setup  - I guess for a player who likes human-wave tactics but hates base defense missions? Otherwise reaching the power total takes either a 2x2 of labs, workshops and quarters and then 8 training and/or med centers (why? we can't fit any soldiers in this base...), or dropping the hangars entirely and building a base that's 100% dedicated to research and production (which gives you well over 100 scientists or engineers to do... something?).

Saving three generators in one base is... not gonna happen. Those designs above are only barely above the power threshold for the last generator to be needed so they have a lot of spare power available.

 

Note: I'm definitively not saying that alenium generators actually need a buff. I can't find a base design that would justify them with our current set of buildings and time available - but we're in a progression-locked early access version right now. All it would take is one or two late-game buildings that draw 50 or 100 power in one tile and they suddenly look better.

 

If I can offer some unsolicited advice (risky business, I know...):

@bonerstorm it would be a good idea to tone down the phrasing you use. I do think the core of what you're saying is usually right, but you've repeatedly said things like 'mandatory' and 'literally impossible' for things that have turned out to be 'optimal but not strictly necessary' or 'quite difficult'. That gets under people's skin, as you can see in this thread. Say the same thing with less definitive wording and you'll be able to spend more time on the actual point (where, like I said, I think you've generally been doing OK).

@bifohe6676 (and anyone else watching this debate) just insert a mental 'probably' or 'I think' anywhere bonerstorm says 'definitely' or 'guaranteed'. There's usually a decent point being made underneath that, and it's not worth getting into an internet argument over that kind of wording.

[bonerstorm]

6 hours ago, Skyfire said:

Note: I'm definitively not saying that alenium generators actually need a buff.

Me neither, but I have no compunction saying that they need a discount - if the intent is for them to be a viable option before, just throwing a number out there, day 120 (around the time I started adding medbays, training and more radars to my secondary bases).

6 hours ago, Skyfire said:

If I can offer some unsolicited advice (risky business, I know...):

@bonerstorm it would be a good idea to tone down the phrasing you use. I do think the core of what you're saying is usually right, but you've repeatedly said things like 'mandatory' and 'literally impossible' for things that have turned out to be 'optimal but not strictly necessary' or 'quite difficult'. That gets under people's skin, as you can see in this thread. Say the same thing with less definitive wording and you'll be able to spend more time on the actual point (where, like I said, I think you've generally been doing OK).

@bifohe6676 (and anyone else watching this debate) just insert a mental 'probably' or 'I think' anywhere bonerstorm says 'definitely' or 'guaranteed'. There's usually a decent point being made underneath that, and it's not worth getting into an internet argument over that kind of wording.

Guilty!

I usually post on forums when I'm buggered by insomnia at 2AM local time and too frustrated to play games. I just ragequit on the expansion to Green Hell and am booting up Terra Invicta again for a PURGE playthrough. In my day-to-day I have to be very careful with words, so when I turn that part of my brain off... yeah, it's a lame excuse but that's the one I got.

So I recognize that the language I use is condescending and inflammatory. For that I apologize sincerely.

I love you all. You are my homies. And very soon together we will purge the xenos <3 

[LynneJJW]

Just hit the wall again after the update. day... 448 and its been some 140 days without a UFO  i win! lol

 

 So, from my look at the game 125 hours in now. I have some more to add other than another thread I made earlier.

 

1. Panic System. Panic system is great, easy to understand. 

• BUT, it seems to rise a bit too fast on even Recruit. It could be fixed a bit, OR a suggestion; make the panic counter include decimal places as well. Have it so the UFO occurrence/anomaly/ect thats not a mission, points are dependent on how close the occurrence is to a city-point. With the lowest point maybe being 0.2 and the highest being 1.0. scaling per difficulty. On recruit, furthest is 0.2. on Vet it'd be like 1.2 as an example. Balance to whats needed.
• Also, the way to decrease panic is only operational. Only by taking down UFOs do I see it decrease. As of the 448th day, with 140 days of no UFOs, the panic is still atleast high in some regions. How about this...
  1. New mechanic or side story ark (like Cleaners) (might be a bit late for this, or it can go through research or mechanic or something) Working to offer tech to regional militaries for their own military protection, this could boost that region's funding to you but it could require you to hand over a stock of weapons that only you can build. This would lower that regions panic by some %. But these CAN be finite choices or time sensitive. The side story ark part is just my idea of a region trying to make their own Xenonauts, illegally, with the weapons you gave that region. And like the Cleaners, youre gonna have to deal with them. (Call them XCOM, for the giggles)
  2. Have a capped points for panic, and anything before the next cap-point will have the panic decrease to the last cap-point. for Recruit, it could be every 25%. So, if my panic is 49%, not yet 50% (my next cap point), then the panic in that region decreases by 1 each day or week (balance needed) till it rests back at 25%. Balance to whats needed.
• Its something like above or add more panic decreasing events.

2. Cleaners. I like them, I feel its a good addition, but kinda lack depth.

• These guys are kinda, unexplained. Itd be best to have them maybe as a 3rd party encounter in one of the other missions, rather than the first mission being that you bust into their Regional HQ to grab some flashdrives. 
• They are also very tough, very accurate, and deal lot of damage. they have accelerator rifles. something I dont get till a little later, but they have them. At the first Clearers mission, I dont have these weapons yet or they are hard to build due to a lack of resources. Even in the easiest mode. In suggestion, itd be best if these guys were better scaled to events.
• The tackle of the Cleaners did nothing for me other than more opportunities to get money. It didnt lower panic or add on any new tech or paths to assist me. I dont see anything in the roadmap about them providing much else than money. suggestion to this would be to maybe add in psi resistance tech or something?

4. Ground Combat is clean. but...

• The penalties for blocked shots is too harsh. with a sniper rifle, shooting over a 3 foot box is -40%. this is when nether I nor the enemy is taking cover behind it. Same with things you should be able to shoot through without problem, like guard rails and fences. Suggest to redo the penalties of things depending on the vertical size of them rather than what they are.
• The chances of shooting things RIGHT infront of you that you dont want to hit is too high. If possible, a calculation of the first object from the character should fix this. Then throw in hit chance of the size of the object... so forth. Base Character accuracy % + weapon accuracy % - distance x% - object height %
• Burst fire is still kinda useless. I dont know how to fix this other than just increasing the general accuracy % of burst. 
• The armor plating and some other items are kinda on the heavier side and needs some tweaks. Plates are 12. normal high end plates range from 5 to 10 depending on the material and composite. No idea for the sci-fi plates. balance accordingly?
• Weapon systems need to be a bit more unique rather than just a blatant improvement. Theres upgrades for laser weapons ammo. but its useless once you get Gauss weapons. How about... 
  1. Accelerated weapons are a bit heavier than starter weapons, do good damage as they do. Can damage and penetrate armor better. This can be the vertical upgrade weapon type.
  2. Laser weapons should have a great accuracy and slightly lower TU pull. They do little to no damage to armor, but has good armor penetration. They should have a closer damage bonus.
  3. Gauss weapons are great at accuracy, not as great as laser, and require slightly higher TU to run as it needs to charge capacitors. does heavy damage to armor and great penetration. But the power to fire these things is too high so it would need a reload every shot. Later upgrade can expand it to how laser weapons have their base ammo caps. 
  -This is to better give each weapon type a better balance feel or purpose and advantage that it could have even in late or end game.

5. New Dropships Needed

• In honesty, the dropship currently, feels OP as is, too much fuel (range) for the first dropship. Maybe a UH-60 variant or something russian, like a Mi-8 variant. even a AW101 Merlin could work as a starter dropship. The point is dealing with your own little radar space first, maybe reach out to other points within the region, not having a full 24,901mile range around the planet.
• But if youre also playing the game strategically enough, you could put your 2nd base in the area the furthest from where the first base, and then that makes the operational range of the SkyHawk obsolete. An X-1 is needed . The X-2 can come a bit later.
• Another thing that would help provide a little more reason to go after the X-3, would be to give the X-3 self defense armament to deal with interceptors (at the least 1) In reality, the AH-64 and other gunships have full AIM-9X AA missiles on their wingtips to deal with enemy jets. or FIM-92 Stingers to deal with enemy Helicopters. The A-10, a ground focused only plane, carries the same AIM-9s for self defense against enemy jets.

6. General pricing is... i hope its a placeholder. Simply that the general pricing of alot of things is too much. 50,000 for the gauss rifle, 50k for a electro rifle, 250k for the MARS, 350,000 for a jet? And their upkeep? 5k per MARS, 80,000 per jet, 100K per dropship, x1 soldier is 10k, 25k per engineer/scientist, 100k per hangar, 400k per radar. 10k per alloy and 20k per alenium. and 100k per exosuit.

• Pricing of everything needs to be looked at. Each firearm in its own category is the same price. the price of a Gauss handgun is the same price to make as a Gauss Sniper Rifle. I dont think anyone wants a massive list of my thoughts on recalculating the prices. 
• At my wall I am at now, as I can sit back and just accumulate money. I built all 6 bases and filled them. My monthly expense report is $10 MILLION. ~$3M for base upkeep. ~3M for aircraft upkeep. ~3M for personnel. Im only getting $15k per region + what my idle science and workshops are making. Im always zapped to $0 as im only able to make some ~$5M at by end of the month. and this is only the 25% point till the endgame. 

 

 

So far, these are some thoughts and suggestions for making the game feel a bit better or more logical or more in depth. 

I look forward to the endgame!

[Vitruviansquid]

 

Quote

 

6. General pricing is... i hope its a placeholder. Simply that the general pricing of alot of things is too much. 50,000 for the gauss rifle, 50k for a electro rifle, 250k for the MARS, 350,000 for a jet? And their upkeep? 5k per MARS, 80,000 per jet, 100K per dropship, x1 soldier is 10k, 25k per engineer/scientist, 100k per hangar, 400k per radar. 10k per alloy and 20k per alenium. and 100k per exosuit.

• Pricing of everything needs to be looked at. Each firearm in its own category is the same price. the price of a Gauss handgun is the same price to make as a Gauss Sniper Rifle. I dont think anyone wants a massive list of my thoughts on recalculating the prices. 
• At my wall I am at now, as I can sit back and just accumulate money. I built all 6 bases and filled them. My monthly expense report is $10 MILLION. ~$3M for base upkeep. ~3M for aircraft upkeep. ~3M for personnel. Im only getting $15k per region + what my idle science and workshops are making. Im always zapped to $0 as im only able to make some ~$5M at by end of the month. and this is only the 25% point till the endgame. 

 

Actually, the pricing of everything you manufacture is way higher than you've described because there is also an opportunity cost for having your engineers make something instead of making money. But I also wonder are you keeping on top of selling your mission loot for cash, because I'm not finding the price of everything as a whole to be too expensive. There might be some money you're leaving on the table.

But yes, I also strongly agree that a pass with pricing balance is needed, especially as a measure to eradicate degenerate strategies. This is what I'd have on my radar.

- The cost of soldiers is too low. You can lose a soldier and not bat an eye unless you have the armor destruction on death turned on. You can hire a bunch of dummies and then fire them to generate supersoldiers in the recruitment pool. The upfront cost of a soldier can even quadruple without me feeling like it's bad for the game.

- The cost of almost all soldier equipment is way too high, especially if you factor in the price of alloys and alienium that you could instead have sold and the engineer-hours that you could've put toward making money. Consider that the cost of soldier equipment exists to save the lives of soldiers. How many lives does one accelerated rifle have to save before it is an investment that paid off? Well the gun itself costs 66.2k accounting for the cost to produce, the price of alloy, and the engineer hours. In the current patch, the single accelerated rifle would have to save the lives of 6.62 soldiers before it is a positive investment. Since there is the option to turn on armor destruction, the calculation between investing in guns somewhat changes, but also giving rise to the possibility of a degenerate strategy where you don't armor your soldiers at all so that you just absorb the losses for 10k a pop where even the cheapest Defender armor means a death costs more than twice as much. 

- I believe interceptors cost too much upfront and I think the paradigm for soldier cost and interceptor cost should have been switched. Soldiers currently cost almost nothing upfront and most of their real cost is in upkeep, interceptors currently cost a lot upfront but a bit less in upkeep. Instead, soldiers are something you lose often and it doesn't particularly help you that much to expand your army while interceptors are something you never lose and it helps you a lot to expand your fleet of interceptors. Therefore, soldiers ought to cost more upfront so it stings a bit to lose one and you can't hire and fire a bunch just to renew your recruitment pool, and interceptors should cost more in upkeep so expanding your fleet strength has more long term cost.

[doubleskulls]

I think the economy as a whole is a bit weird. Our engineers are the only organisation on earth who can produce advanced weapons, but we can't sell them at a profit? The only way for engineers to be profitable is do nothing, and the return on investment for this is very low, certainly its not worth hiring engineers just to sit idle. I'd expect to be able to have a useful income stream, and a profitable one, turning alloys into accelerated weapons and selling them. Instead I'm better doing nothing and selling the alloys. My suggestion would be to make idle engineers produce no money, but be able to produce goods you can sell, rather than use. 

[DaviddesJ]

On 7/30/2023 at 11:46 PM, bonerstorm said:

You didn't demonstrate anything. Because you're just whining instead of posting receipts.

You've already admitted that a lot of the things you said were wrong. That's enough that I no longer care about what you think. I'm just going to keep pointing out when you're wrong. If you aren't convinced I don't care.

[LynneJJW]

4 hours ago, doubleskulls said:

I think the economy as a whole is a bit weird. Our engineers are the only organisation on earth who can produce advanced weapons, but we can't sell them at a profit? The only way for engineers to be profitable is do nothing, and the return on investment for this is very low, certainly its not worth hiring engineers just to sit idle. I'd expect to be able to have a useful income stream, and a profitable one, turning alloys into accelerated weapons and selling them. Instead I'm better doing nothing and selling the alloys. My suggestion would be to make idle engineers produce no money, but be able to produce goods you can sell, rather than use. 

 

That passive income would be needed a bit later, but it can be nerfed a bit. I still think contract good orders could work. 

 

2 hours ago, DaviddesJ said:

You've already admitted that a lot of the things you said were wrong. That's enough that I no longer care about what you think. I'm just going to keep pointing out when you're wrong. If you aren't convinced I don't care.

 

YA! Thats good feedback for the game! argue some more! :/

[Vitruviansquid]

Alright, I'm gonna say it.

I don't think you should be able to make stuff and sell it for a profit in Xenonauts. I think you should only make money in shooting aliens and matters related to shooting aliens, like selling UFO loot and having your funding countries be happy with the locations and styles in which you shoot aliens.

[Skyfire]

15 minutes ago, Vitruviansquid said:

Alright, I'm gonna say it.

I don't think you should be able to make stuff and sell it for a profit in Xenonauts. I think you should only make money in shooting aliens and matters related to shooting aliens, like selling UFO loot and having your funding countries be happy with the locations and styles in which you shoot aliens.

100% agreed. "Alien-Invasion-Profiteering Tycoon" might be a fun game, but it's not this game. Spamming bases full of workshops to take advantage of manufacturing for profit is one of those 'Players will optimise the fun out of the game if you let them' scenarios.

I do think it might be worth adding an in-universe explanation, though: "As part of our organisation's charter, the funding nations have the sole right to purchase any artifacts, equipment or other items of value that we may wish to dispose of, whether recovered from the aliens or developed in the course of the war. The revenue clause specifically mandates that items manufactured on Earth must be sold at-cost or below - apparently some of the founders were concerned we might become... distracted... from our primary goal of fighting the aliens if there was an opportunity for us to profit in other ways."

[bifohe6676]

@Skyfire  Thanks for making the effort and being reasonable, I appreciate that.

After reading through your calculations I agree that the Generator-upgrade as it stands in the current version (1.29b) is not worthwhile for many bases.

I thought I had mentioned that the last missing third of the game offering more high-power-demand-buildings will change this balance further towards its usefulness, I apologize for not putting that into my earlier posts.

I was focusing on making points against broad claims of optimality, and stating my general wish that the game shouldn't even offer all research as straight must-pick improvements in many cases in the first place, which would inevitably lead to a, in my opinion boring, but mathematically truely optimal, meta-strategy.

Maybe I should have emphasised that mathematical optimal solutions are something I don't find good in games these days, because I have personally ruined some great games' replay value for myself by chasing optimal strategies and solutions, even though it brings me a high degree of pleasure to pick them apart for that goal.

Once that optimal solution/combination/path is found, you can't put the genie back into the bottle (at least I can't, sadly).

Artifically gimping myself afterwards just to avoid the optimal path is something I sadly could never force myself to (even though I find it hilarious to see Youtubers try to beat a game on max difficulty with rookies only), I rather offload my shortcomings in this regard to the Devs to make the game offer me novel yet effective paths for at least a couple of campaigns.

I also am thankful for you explaining to @bonerstorm why the wording and the tone in which the posts were presented were just very obnoxious to me from the get-go, because that was the main source of my disagreement as I wrote before, but I didn't get that through even after my last post it seems, so maybe I didn't write my arguments well enough.

Your only point I would disagree with is for us to mentally insert the proper phrasings for others, because as stated there will be areas and topics where there indeed are truely mathematically optimal solutions and combinations to be found (regardless if one likes their existence or not), and if so, they are OK to be called as such, assuming they are backed up properly by a proof of their optimality.

@bonerstorm

Quote

So I recognize that the language I use is condescending and inflammatory. For that I apologize sincerely.

I am glad you are finally understanding that and I very much appreciate the apology, in return I apologize for not writing clearly enough about what I was trying to convey to you, maybe there is even a language-barrier at play here as English is not my first language, I will try to better myself in the future.

[bifohe6676]

On 8/2/2023 at 4:54 AM, Vitruviansquid said:

Alright, I'm gonna say it.

I don't think you should be able to make stuff and sell it for a profit in Xenonauts. I think you should only make money in shooting aliens and matters related to shooting aliens, like selling UFO loot and having your funding countries be happy with the locations and styles in which you shoot aliens.

 

On 8/2/2023 at 5:24 AM, Skyfire said:

100% agreed. "Alien-Invasion-Profiteering Tycoon" might be a fun game, but it's not this game. Spamming bases full of workshops to take advantage of manufacturing for profit is one of those 'Players will optimise the fun out of the game if you let them' scenarios.

I do think it might be worth adding an in-universe explanation, though: "As part of our organisation's charter, the funding nations have the sole right to purchase any artifacts, equipment or other items of value that we may wish to dispose of, whether recovered from the aliens or developed in the course of the war. The revenue clause specifically mandates that items manufactured on Earth must be sold at-cost or below - apparently some of the founders were concerned we might become... distracted... from our primary goal of fighting the aliens if there was an opportunity for us to profit in other ways."

I know many oldtimers and fans of the original X-COM miss that, but I 100% agree with you on this, I rather not be forced to find the optimal item to produce and sell just to finance the resistance efforts, it is just busywork to me that can be just as well be simulated by the regional incomes, and as you stated we are already selling alien tech looted from UFOs.

[doubleskulls]

On the topic of Alenium Generators, they are producing around 62% more power, e.g. 3 produces 340 vs 210 from regular generators. They have the same build cost ($200k), but higher maintenance ($25k vs $10k p/m). 

My base strategy is to have the initial base being built up, the 2nd base has additional engineering and the other bases are just hangars and radar. I don't build missile batteries and use sentry guns for defence.  

'Hangars & Radar' - we get 100 power from the access lift, which is enough for a single radar. If you want two radars you need 20 more power, so a regular generator is fine. If you want 3 radars you need 180 power, which would be a single Alenium generator or 2 regular generators. In that scenario the alenium generator is $5k more p/m, but $200k less initial investment, so definitely worth having. I don't think I'd ever have a 3 radar base outside of my starting base, so this scenario won't kick in. 

My secondary base, with 2 radars and 3 workshops needs 225 power, 125 from generators, which requires 2 additional generators of either type. 

A main base 3 radar base, with training, medical, and 5 workshops/labs, needs 305 power, which is 3 alenium or 4 regular generators. 

So for my base setup there is no point doing the alenium generator research. I need one more regular generator ($200k) than I would if I did the $500k upgrade (plus Alenium), and the monthly maintenance is lower on regular generators too. The extra tile being used does not carry weight with me, even the starting base isn't full and I've loads of room in my other bases to build additional labs or workshops if I wanted to expand further. At the end of the 180 days the only expansion I'm considering is whether to add more living quarters/training so I can get more rookies in so I don't have to send colonel's on missions. The training centre would push me to need a 2nd additional regular generator, which still would be more cost effective than the upgrade.  

I'm sure there are other base designs where over all your bases you'd benefit, but you'd need to be using a lot more power than I am to justify it. Probably the most likely scenario would be building missile batteries. The critical question is whether the power demands tip you over the edge in terms of needing additional generators built or not. Overall you'd probably need to have at least 3 fewer generators being required to justify the investment as is, and even then its undermined in value because the maintenance costs are higher. From what I can see between 151-180 power, and between 231-420 you need an additional regular generator, 421-440 you need 2, but then its back down to 1 until you get to 500.  

[bonerstorm]

On 8/4/2023 at 10:50 AM, bifohe6676 said:

I am glad you are finally understanding that and I very much appreciate the apology, in return I apologize for not writing clearly enough about what I was trying to convey to you, maybe there is even a language-barrier at play here as English is not my first language, I will try to better myself in the future.

HAHAHAAA NO NO NO NO NO

Your English is flawless. Better than the average native speaker online. You should be proud. I mean that sincerely.

It's an old joke that ESL speakers will write the most grammatically-perfect English paragraph we've ever seen, then apologize for probably mucking it up.

On 8/5/2023 at 6:08 AM, doubleskulls said:

I don't think I'd ever have a 3 radar base outside of my starting base, so this scenario won't kick in. 

As of the last time I played, there was a hard limit on the number of bases you could have... which means that eventually you'll need to have 3 radars in each one if you want to have maximum coverage that still won't cover all of Earth's landmass.

[doubleskulls]

9 hours ago, bonerstorm said:

As of the last time I played, there was a hard limit on the number of bases you could have... which means that eventually you'll need to have 3 radars in each one if you want to have maximum coverage that still won't cover all of Earth's landmass.

 

You are correct you can't cover the entirity of the worlds land surface, but I don't think that's really important. IIRC I could cover all of Europe, Africa and most of Soviet/Asia with 2 bases, a level 3 radar near Chad, and a level 2 near Bejing. A level 1 in south america is enough and then a level 2 in North America. A base in Australia with level 1 and I think the land not covered does not have any material impact on the game. Although there could be areas UFOs could still do something, you'll almost certainly pick them up before they drive up panic materially. 

[Komandos]

On 8/1/2023 at 2:57 PM, LynneJJW said:

Also, the way to decrease panic is only operational. Only by taking down UFOs do I see it decrease. As of the 448th day, with 140 days of no UFOs, the panic is still atleast high in some regions.

This is a real flaw in the game.

If aliens for some unknown reason suddenly decide to stop taking over the planet, then humanity will continue to live in such stress and panic until the end of the universe. And an accidental "duck" (a false media report) that a UFO stole a cow from a farmer can lead to a general nuclear apocalypse and the death of all mankind.

The level of panic should gradually decrease in the same way as the flood level decreases independently after rain.

Edited August 27, 2023 by Komandos