X-COM: EU (2012) and what it could bring to Xenonauts

[TrashMan]

Because it's not punishment. You refuse to see it as anything other than that.

I can easily call any twist in the story or gameplay "punishment" if I choose.

My character thrown into jail? All my items removed? PUNISHMENT!

New, more difficult enemy intorducted? PUNISHMENT?

See, I can easily label things however I want.

How about loosing in a gam?. Total team wipe. I should never suffer a total team wipe. Ever.

I call that irritation and bad game design.

Now prove me wrong on that.

You know the funny thing about this? You can't. There is no argument you can bring forth that would sway me.

I don't like to loose - therefore, bad game design. Because as everyone knows, if I don't like something it is automaticly bad. Because I am always right. Things like tastes don't exist.

TW: Shogun? But I don't like shogunate japan period. Game sucks. Bad design.

[Max_Caine]

Sinfullyvanilla, please be careful when making broad, sweeping statements. Because if people "universally complain" about a feature like base defence, they certainly haven't here. When it comes to the issue of base defence you're in the minority, old chum.

[Sinfullyvannila]

Umm, that's the worst argument ever, first off, you say that it is objectively not punishment, then you say one can define anything as punishment.

First off, I'm not saying that punishment in itself is bad. If you are making poor decisions or playing neglectfully, punishment is a good thing. The problem is when a game punishes youfor doing well. A game should punish you for playing poorly, but reward you for playing well.

In the case of "punishment" in a storyline twist, progressing the story is a reward, not a punishment at all, since that's the players main goal in a story based game.

More challenging enemies isn't a punishment, since a smooth difficulty curve is a reward. The difference is that base defense missions AREN'T more challenging than any other mission type(in fact, they are by far the easiest mission type), it's just that they suddenly put you in the situation where you can lose based on the outcome of a single mission.

[Gorlom]

Because it's not punishment. You refuse to see it as anything other than that.

I can easily call any twist in the story or gameplay "punishment" if I choose.

My character thrown into jail? All my items removed? PUNISHMENT!

New, more difficult enemy intorducted? PUNISHMENT?

See, I can easily label things however I want.

How about loosing in a gam?. Total team wipe. I should never suffer a total team wipe. Ever.

I call that irritation and bad game design.

Now prove me wrong on that.

You know the funny thing about this? You can't. There is no argument you can bring forth that would sway me.

I don't like to loose - therefore, bad game design. Because as everyone knows, if I don't like something it is automaticly bad. Because I am always right. Things like tastes don't exist.

TW: Shogun? But I don't like shogunate japan period. Game sucks. Bad design.

RNG is bad game design! misses are punishing! my shot should always hit and the enemy should always miss!

(poking fun at you not starting that back up )

Umm, that's the worst argument ever, first off, you say that it is objectively not punishment, then you say one can define anything as punishment.

First off, I'm not saying that punishment in itself is bad. If you are making poor decisions or playing neglectfully, punishment is a good thing. The problem is when a game punishes youfor doing well. A game should punish you for playing poorly, but reward you for playing well.

In the case of "punishment" in a storyline twist, progressing the story is a reward, not a punishment at all, since that's the players main goal in a story based game.

More challenging enemies isn't a punishment, since a smooth difficulty curve is a reward. The difference is that base defense missions AREN'T more challenging than any other mission type(in fact, they are by far the easiest mission type), it's just that they suddenly put you in the situation where you can lose based on the outcome of a single mission.

They (the misions) are different from regular missions (even if it isjust the tileset), together with the tension you get from that lose the mision lose the game feeling could be enjoyable in a different way than the normal missions...

Also if there wasn't anything that "punished you for doing well" ie held you back you wouldn't get that smooth difficulty curve reward would you? you'd be punished with too easy enemies because you ran to far ahead of the curve and the game stopped being rewarding in that aspect.

You keep refering to the blue koopa shell. IS the blue koopa shell in mario kart such a bad mechanic? Isn't it possible that it can still be done well?

Edited November 8, 2012 by Gorlom

[Sinfullyvannila]

Sinfullyvanilla, please be careful when making broad, sweeping statements. Because if people "universally complain" about a feature like base defence, they certainly haven't here. When it comes to the issue of base defence you're in the minority, old chum.

I should clarify that I have no problem with the concept of Base Defense in general, I do have a problem with how it was implemented in the originals.

If you are in a situation where you are being punished, you should be there because you weren't playing well, not the other way around.

Also if there wasn't anything that "punished you for doing well" ie held you back you wouldn't get that smooth difficulty curve reward would you? you'd be punished with too easy enemies because you ran to far ahead of the curve and the game stopped being rewarding in that aspect.

Like I said before though, they aren't any more challenging than the regular missions though(as long as you know how to get around the various bugs and limitation concerning them), so they don't contribute to the curve.

You keep refering to the blue koopa shell. IS the blue koopa shell in mario kart such a bad mechanic? Isn't it possible that it can still be done well?

Probably the best way for it to be done well is to take it out of Single Player, and make it optional for Multiplayer. I'm referring more to the "Blue Koopa Shell" design philosophy than the specific mechanic itself.

Edited November 8, 2012 by Sinfullyvannila

[Gorlom]

Then it would be the best to detail what is wrong and how it should be improved rather than only saying that the blue koopa shell mechanic is bad on principle...

wait... if the base defnse isn't harder or different in any way from other misions (taken out of context) why are they a punishment? Aren't they more of a reward that is triggered if you do well enough?

(I don't really care for preserving how they are triggered. They could be triggered by doing bad for all I care. Have them show up if the ticker advances more then X points in Y time. or whatever)

Edited November 8, 2012 by Gorlom

[AvistTorch]

Eh, the one problem I had with base defense in the original X-Com was the possibility that your best troops and equipment could all be out on a mission when one happened. You had a fair amount of warning that one was coming once you had the Hyperwave Decoder, but especially in the early-game, you should have a little bit of forewarning to give you some time to get back to base or prepare (as early as Veteran difficulty, I've had base defense missions in the first month, and the buggers completely snuck through my radar coverage to boot).

Huh, just thought of an idea. Perhaps base defenses could give you some extra time before the invasion mission starts to get back to base.

Edited November 8, 2012 by AvistTorch

[zzz1010]

If you continuously to bite powerfull enemy he can bite you in answer, you can call this punishment but is other side of geoscape confrontation. Doing well there is to be sure you keep you base covert from scouts lurking around where this small bad human aircrafts take off and not to allow them to report, and be prepared to defend yourself. If you will lose in both things this is not doing well and you will be punished.

You do not just tank general exploding clay huts

You are the captain of the submarine lying on the floor with the engine off and afraid to sneeze listening sonar tossed above destroyer who trying to "punish you for doing well"

Edited November 8, 2012 by zzz1010

[Gorlom]

what exactly did trigger base defense missions in EU94? (im too lazy to look it up on the wiki)

[zzz1010]

what exactly did trigger base defense missions in EU94? (im too lazy to look it up on the wiki)

"...If X-COM Interceptors (or Avengers/Firestorms/Lightnings) are being particularly successful in shooting down UFOs then the Aliens may take some retaliatory action. This could result in a direct attack against an X-COM base. However, the aliens have to find an X-COM base in order to attack it, and provided UFOs are kept away then there should be little danger of an assault.

Scouts of various sizes will attempt to locate your base. If you shoot them down, they will be unable to do so. A battleship will appear at the end of this wave. If your base was detected, the Battleship will zoom in at top speed, low to the ground and immediately land, making it only possible to intercept with an Avenger. If you managed to stop the scout's search efforts, the battleship will appear, fly around for a while, (as if challenging your interceptors to a fight) then fly off again into space...."

[Gorlom]

Not very detailed as to what constitutes as "particularly successfull"

could you shoot down the battleship?

Edited November 8, 2012 by Gorlom

[zzz1010]

Yes, you could. And wiki say it's only possible with avenger but I did this by interceptors if you have plasma cannons and HWdecoder, but it's hard and it powerfull.

by the way in my last SH EU run I never got base attacks because I was very successful at shutdowning things. And they only investigate regions where too much intercept activity (just like you investigate regions with too much ufo activity for bases and attack them)

Not very detailed as to what constitutes as "particularly successfull"

Well if something continuously shootdown ufos in certain region - aliens become suspicions and angry. There no known angry meter numbers.

Edited November 8, 2012 by zzz1010

[Sinfullyvannila]

If you continuously to bite powerfull enemy he can bite you in answer, you can call this punishment but is other side of geoscape confrontation. Doing well there is to be sure you keep you base covert from scouts lurking around where this small bad human aircrafts take off and not to allow them to report, and be prepared to defend yourself. If you will lose in both things this is not doing well and you will be punished.

You do not just tank general exploding clay huts

You are the captain of the submarine lying on the floor with the engine off and afraid to sneeze listening sonar tossed above destroyer who trying to "punish you for doing well"

Problem is, the only way to "prevent" base attacks is to shoot down scout ships, which in turn will generate more retaliations, so there's really no way to "do well" in that regard.

[zzz1010]

Problem is, the only way to "prevent" base attacks is to shoot down scout ships, which in turn will generate more retaliations, so there's really no way to "do well" in that regard.

Well, then continue to shootdown scouts, you need to secure region anyway. And they didn't try to retaliate every week. Personally I didn't saw too much issues with this base attacks. I'm attack them, they attack me - we are at war with each other.

Someone just imagine base as sort of savehouse where no one can touch them. But geoscape game is sort of war too, it's not just mission selection screen. As I say it's just other side, consequence, of confrontation - if you attack them they try to attack you, why they must just ignore. They powerfull but stupid, you small but covert. You continue attack them and they continue to search you. And this will continue before one of as fall.

If they search you - it's not autofail - you can pervent this, if they found you - it's not autofail -you can defend(it's can be hard but most time you can). You fail if you careless and didn't guarding your base

It's just like you sucsessfuly blowup some US buildings and then crying why marines deploy at your base, punishing you for sucsess. You just didn't care about investigators (Is this sound too extremist? I'm far from any politics)

Edited November 8, 2012 by zzz1010

[Gorlom]

Problem is, the only way to "prevent" base attacks is to shoot down scout ships, which in turn will generate more retaliations, so there's really no way to "do well" in that regard.

yes, there is. you could shoot down the battleship and loot if for epics! Ok the battleship probably doesn't contain anything special that you cant find any other way. (wouldn't it be cool if it did though?) but point is you could do well.

[zzz1010]

Ok the battleship probably doesn't contain anything special that you cant find any other way.

It's contain ton of elerium(also when you successfully defend your base you got it - this way, if you well prepared, base battles can be not threat but nice source of ellerium) And also can content leaders\commanders,(only another way to got them is alien bases) some of them can be usfull for interrogation. But they are very tough. (If you don't have at least plasma cannons win them at air combat it's near to impossible)

Edited November 8, 2012 by zzz1010

[ObLoM]

yes, there is. you could shoot down the battleship and loot if for epics! Ok the battleship probably doesn't contain anything special that you cant find any other way. (wouldn't it be cool if it did though?) but point is you could do well.

That reminds me of another thing I loved about the new X-COM - battleships DID contain something special that only battleships could contain! Let's please reward extra hard fights

[Gorlom]

That reminds me of another thing I loved about the new X-COM - battleships DID contain something special that only battleships could contain! Let's please reward extra hard fights

It should not be the only way to get anything crutial to progression though. It would be nice if it contained something that opened up fluff research.. but Chris is trying to not make anything be just fluff. Maybe it can contain something that lets you research an extra powerful med kit or some hidden/secret/bonus Tuxedo armour for the Bond style Xenonauts (the helmet would be a top hat)? something that is usefull but isn't a weapon or aircraft.

[Drag]

Whether base attacks are punishments or not, imo, depends on how you view the game. If you view it as a game, then you can certainly make that argument. However, in my view, games like X-Com are meant to be simulations, and base attacks are important in that sense. As previously stated, base attacks are the AIs reaction to you. In the game, the AI should seek to win, not just be an obstacle to you winning. In a multi-player strategy game, the other player doesn't simply throw stuff at you for you to fight and stop short of defeating you. The other player will actively seek victory, and if you are impeding said victory, the player will seek to remove that threat and obstacle. The AI should be doing the same. Ideally, there would be multiple levels of AI responses like unthreatened, passive defense, active defense, and offense.

Additionally, base attacks are also there to force choices between short-term and long-term goals. For example, if you have only been using a small pool of soldiers, then every time you send them out, your base is more vulnerable. Perhaps you should rotate your squads more, so that would be less of an issue. Maybe there is an landing or terror mission happening, but your fleet has taken quite a beating and you are not quite prepared to withstand a base attack. Maybe you should let the attack happen and accept the consequences in hopes that your force will be more useful in the long run. These choices can arise because the player is vulnerable. Take away that vulnerability, the choices disappear, and the game suffers. If you insist on thinking of them a punishments, then think of them as punishments for you not being prepared or having contingency plans.

That is not to say that X-Com couldn't have done a better job regarding base attacks. Personally, I believe that the options for defending against or avoiding a base attack were just too few. You should have options to, say, use passive/active camo, move the base, use smaller and cheaper "sub bases" to allow for defense through dispersion, etc...

In terms of the soldier progression and cover systems from XCOM:EU, do not implement them like EU does. The progression system was way too restrictive. Something like a upgrade points system with multiple trees would be much better or apply abilities to weapons and not soldiers. The cover system was way too binary leading to situations where it did not make sense. If you are going to use cover, make it more complex. If a soldier is 1 square away from being 90 degrees from and enemy and flanking them, unless the enemy is really thin or there is another obstruction in the way, the enemy should not get full or any cover bonuses.

[Sinfullyvannila]

You can spin it however you want, but if you ask people who play video games if they think that it's good game design for a game to punish you for doing well, they will generally tell you no.

Base defense doesn't really force you to make complex decisions. Just keep like a dozen extra soldiers on the base, and create a chokepoint. You want to do that anyway, since you are going to eventually buy a ton of soldiers for PSI testing and to make sure you are never short from injuries/deaths.

[zzz1010]

It's demagogy.

You can ask hundred people, no matter how they related to videogames, is dry hat is better then wet and most of them will answer you - yes. Because of this base attacks is important part of the game and make game world more live, believable and immersive

They will tell this to you so far you call this so.

But I didn't see base attacks as punishment for doing well at any way.

It's punisment for your existence.

Stay calm.

Don't act

They came in peace

Soon everyone will understand this

Edited November 10, 2012 by zzz1010

[TrashMan]

You can spin it however you want, but if you ask people who play video games if they think that it's good game design for a game to punish you for doing well, they will generally tell you no.

Except that's not what the game is doing so they would tell you yes.

And Xenonauts will have base defense, so you long lost your argument.

[Sinfullyvannila]

It's blatantly what the game is doing. The game even tells you that's what it's that's what it's doing right here. That's a fact, it's not up for debate. The game basically tells you "Good job, now defend your base or lose."

And like I said before, I don't have a problem with the concept of Base Defense, just how it was implemented in the originals. If they're going to put in a flawed mechanic from the original, they'd better damn well pull it off right. Don't just "kitchen sink" those features in without regard to how it will affect gameplay. If they are putting it in there, don't make it a punishment for doing well, or at least if they are going to do that, put in effective countermeasures for it that you can access early in the game. Like, maybe stationary AA batteries or some way to "dummy" a base signal. Make those AA batteries really cost ineffective and the base dummies so that it targets a nation's base instead and you will lose out on long-term benefits from them.

And as far as being immersive and believable goes, that's really not a great idea at the sacrifice of gameplay. Look at Wing Commander Privateer vs Frontier: First encounters. FFE's physics attempt to be as realistic as possible, whereas WCP's are laughably unrealistic. Ask anyone who's played both games which one they had more fun with, and I'm sure they'll all say WCP.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Sinfullyvannila

[HWP]

The mechanic was done exactly right in the original. There is little room for improvement. It was one of the best things they done in the game.

I suspect that an alien attack ruined one of your playthroughs (or your only one?) and you're still pissed about it. That is not the case for most other players. In fact, losing your main base is virtually impossible, even when your Lightning is midway to/from a site, if you have more than the minimum number of soldiers. It's secondary bases that came under threat.

Base defense missions combined fun and tension in a way only alien base attacks and Cydonia did - minus the silly layouts of the latter two.

[Sinfullyvannila]

The mechanic was done exactly right in the original. There is little room for improvement. It was one of the best things they done in the game.

I suspect that an alien attack ruined one of your playthroughs (or your only one?) and you're still pissed about it. That is not the case for most other players. In fact, losing your main base is virtually impossible, even when your Lightning is midway to/from a site, if you have more than the minimum number of soldiers. It's secondary bases that came under threat.

Base defense missions combined fun and tension in a way only alien base attacks and Cydonia did - minus the silly layouts of the latter two.

Since I started with TFTD, the only problems I had with the Originals Base Defense missions were the 80 item limit and preferential enemy spawns(I just thought that it gave you a random item selection), which there is absolutely no way to learn about unless you code dive or look it up on the internet(which wasn't available to me back in '96). Everything else you learn the hard way from Base Attacks(like how your base was set up by an idiot), I had already worked out. Other than the way it was implemented being anathema to game design(which I'm not the only one who shares this sentiment, just ask fans of Fighting games how much they like rubberband mechanics), there were plenty of problems with base designs from the original.

Edited November 10, 2012 by Sinfullyvannila