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

[Name]

Hi guys,

*snip

About the good... (I cant help but think you were crazy while writing this but your opinion matters.)

The cover system is head smashingly BADBADBADBAD

I had 2 soldiers 1 tile away from a floater (litterally) (admitidly they are rookies)

The shot chance was 55% the same as when they were 1 max move away

and what looks like a flanking shoot isnt.....

Soldier progression ehhhh i dont like it....

Why are medikits one use any way? (to push class bases crap foward)

admitidly stupid things... (sniper needing squad sight)

The movement system I hate with a deep passion.......

Part of it is pathing (Jarhead#1 Ill just run throught this poison cloud Jarhead#2 died in recently)

the rest I either agree with or I cannot currently think of a response...

can't take back missclicks... (and seeing as you get only 2 actions per trun is incredablly annoying.)

[Gorlom]

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."

Are you sure that's what the game is saying? isn't it saying "Good job, here's a chance to play a challenge to get a big reward, but be careful if you lose it is over". You have a bunch of chances to avoid the base defense. It's not straight up punishment like you try to spin it. You have to actually go looking for it to get it.

Either you haven't noticed the reward, don't think it's worth it or the game isn't pulling it off properly. Instead of arguing the horror of the mechanic, as you see it, IMPROVE it. it's not going away because everyone else wants it.

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.

You have a problem with how it is implemented but I don't see how your suggestion about A batteries and dummy bases fix it? what is it you have a problem with specifically? sI it about the ground battle or about the geoscape?

Is the fight harder?

Is it the lose condition?

Is it that the swarm of UFOs putting on pressure?

That avoiding it is counter intuitive?

That you can't avoid it?

That the game is telling you it is reacting to your play negatively?

The lack of perceptible reward?

Is the mechanic for selecting soldiers and equipment for the mission flawed?

Something that I haven't thought of?

Edited November 10, 2012 by Gorlom

[thothkins]

I share Drag's views on this one. I never put in a base defence, just so I could have more aliens to kill in a base defence mission and sell their loot.

"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."

If we have this, then I'd want fake alien bases. You land a chinook. Enter the base. There may even be one or two aliens. You may find the small Alenium Bomb before it detonates, you may not. A nice game would give you a small countdown clock to get your troops out. Watch out for that minefield they activated between your current position and the Chinook though.

I've only ever seen the base attack as the game AI realising that it would have to up it's game in order to defeat you. It's adapting it's strategy, which is a Very Good Thing.

[Sinfullyvannila]

The problems with it are mostly that all of a sudden, there is a new lose condition, and it's solely because you are doing well. Compounding the issue is that there is no effective way to prevent being exposed to the lose condition until later in the game(because early base defenses are awful) other than to stop shooting down UFOs.

My suggestions would allow you to prepare for the lose condition and sidestep it.

[Gorlom]

But you could already shoot down the ship with interceptors. Adding AA batteries or dummy bases would just make the mechanic horrible. It wouldn't make sense why the game would send a battleship after you if you could automatically shoot it down. Passively sidestepping the mechanic invalidates it, kill everything fun about it.

If you make it possible to buy economically ineffective AA batteries most players are going to assume that they are supposed to be bought and the economy is poorly balanced. And sooner or later they are going to be easy to support unless you provide some other rubberband mechanic.

would you like more information about what is happening? a bigger reward? could you fix it without destroying it?

[thothkins]

Adding AA batteries

Ah crap, I've gone and bought AAA batteries for my base defences. No wonder they won't work. Oh, no here they come!

and now we return you to the train of this thread....

[zzz1010]

But you could already shoot down the ship with interceptors.

After a while I begin to think(because wiki say it must be too fast for conventional ones) that I just previously kill all scouts and it just blindly flyed around(it don't have sensors) and fly away if I just wait, but I saw at hyperwave "retaliation battleship" and just - "alarm, alarm, all interceptors to take off"

He think base attacks is too dangerous and want to just fly around and kill things without to be in serious danger.

If you fight aliens you doing right, this is why we here, but as cosequence you can got a fight where if you loose it can be loose in war, how you can put player here, player must necessarily win in game.

But this is not a game this is war, and there this is called countermeasures

It must be just less spontan and more slow to give player chance to counterattack or prepare to base fight, but this "punishment" system itself is good.

Edited November 11, 2012 by zzz1010

[TornadoADV]

Ah crap, I've gone and bought AAA batteries for my base defences. No wonder they won't work. Oh, no here they come!

and now we return you to the train of this thread....

Mmmm...the irony of this post.

[Drag]

In terms of the game warning you of an impeding base attack, it already does. When you see the number of ships increase significant, when ships start to fly around in circles as though it was looking for something, or when ship pops into view once you've launched an interceptor to shoot down another ship, that is the game telling your that the AI is ramping up. Sure it doesn't beat you over the head and yell "WE ARE ATTACKING!!!1!!!", but it doesn't need to nor should it. Now, the first time you play, you might not know that it is leading to an attack or that you could get attacked. To solve this, simply have the game tell you during a "tutorial" on base building. Something like "In order to build a base...blah, blah, blah...but don't forget to secure your base in case of attack." Now the player knows that an attack is possible, has fair warning, and can do what he/she thinks is necessary for the base's defense. In regards to AA, X-COM had defensive buildings. Those are effectively AA batteries.

In terms of "base attacks don't force choices, you just keep a few troops always around and construct bases with choke points", that is a choice. By applying funds towards maintaining a force and the equipment they'll need and building your base in a manner that favors defense, you have used time and resources that could have been used to build a new base in an uncovered area, research or construct items faster, or simply build up cash. That is short term vs long term goal.

In conclusion, games should present the players with the information necessary to survive and make decisions. This I agree with. However, games should not treat players as idiots. They should not coddle players. Let players do what they want and let them learn from the game organicly and adapt. Let them fail when appropriate, so that their successes are so much sweeter. Players are not stupid; lazy perhaps, but not stupid. Don't treat them as such.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Drag

[HWP]

The problems with it are mostly that all of a sudden, there is a new lose condition, and it's solely because you are doing well.

BAAAAAAAAAAW there is a new lose condition now!

You can play The Sims or something if you don't like games where losing is a real possibility.

There is plenty of games where this happens.

Take any global space strategy (4X). As long as you're sitting on your butt in your well-barricaded corner of the galaxy, placating your nearest neighbor, the other races are not about to bother you. Yes, eventually, as they get bored, they'll send in an invasion fleet to rape you, because that's the victory condition, but you're safe for most of the game.

Now start doing well - fly around kicking asses - and you'll have otherwise peaceful races build up starships and go after your every colony.

Play some poker tournaments online. You can play with "game money", don't have to put up real cash. If you're trading blinds with everyone else, you remain at the table. But come over someone's head, stack them and double up - and the next thing you know, the game pulls your butt out of your thoroughly warmed-up chair and seats you at a table with bigger fish. Or, in a real money tourney, not fish at all.

BAAAAW punishment for doing well! Monetary punishment this time.

Wait. Maybe you are going to say it's different. That it's not a punishment at all, because now you have a bigger stack and can swim with bigger fish.

But isn't the same the case in UFO? You, too, get a bigger stack (of alien artifacts, E115, alloys, research, cash, respect) if you shoot down a lot of UFOs, which is the prerequisite for a base attack.

So no, it's really the same.

[Sinfullyvannila]

The 4X comparison is totally bogus, since the win/lose conditions are static throughout the game. That doesn't address my argument at all.

Poker isn't a video game. It's gambling. It's serious business. That's not even apples to oranges, that's apples to hummus.

And I'm really not scared at all about games with a loss condition, heck, we had a long conversation about Roguelikes the other day.

And weren't most of you guys going on about how X-Com was great because of all the freedom you had, and now you are defending a system that has no freedom whatsoever? Most of the time you have no choice but to defend your base, because there isn't a feasible way to do anything else.

[zzz1010]

Most of the time you have no choice but to fight with aliens, because there isn't a feasible way to do anything else.

Shoot down ALL the UFOs, not just the easy ones.

But scouts are easy ones

Build base defenses.

But it is not usefull too much because they send new if ufo was destroyed by the base defence (well, it's work but become too tiresome because it not stop ), you need to kill it before it reach base or win in base fight to make them change mind about attacking this base. Mind shield little more usefull because it is hide you.

Edited November 11, 2012 by zzz1010

[HWP]

The 4X comparison is totally bogus, since the win/lose conditions are static throughout the game. That doesn't address my argument at all.

So they are in UFO. A base attack doesn't change win/lose conditions.

Poker isn't a video game. It's gambling. It's serious business.

And if it's done that way in srsbsns, there's no reason not to do it in a game.

And weren't most of you guys going on about how X-Com was great because of all the freedom you had, and now you are defending a system that has no freedom whatsoever? Most of the time you have no choice but to defend your base, because there isn't a feasible way to do anything else.

Of course there is.

1) Shoot down ALL the UFOs, not just the easy ones.

2) Build base defenses.

3) Play The Sims 4: Barbie In Love. Why is it OK for you to attack alien base, but not OK for them to attack yours?

[TornadoADV]

I think his case comes from the fact that the only way to discourage the aliens from keeping sending ships into the teeth of your base's defense until the end of time is to let one succeed in invading your base and having to risk it's facilities to firefights (So fun when blaster bombs got involved) just so the aliens decide that because they lost one ground party, (when you could have been vaporizing battleship after battleship with Plasma or Blaster Bomb base defenses) they should leave your base alone.

So the only logical ways this can be dealt with is that the aliens never stop attacking a base once discovered, your only choice if you want the attacks to stop is to scuttle the base and build anew in a different location or that the aliens stop trying to invade your base if you destroy enough of their attack ships (logically, they should then focus on heavier attacks on the local area and harassing any dropships or interceptors that launch from said base.)

[Gorlom]

you are defending a system that has no freedom whatsoever? Most of the time you have no choice but to defend your base, because there isn't a feasible way to do anything else.

I disagree that it i as restrictive or limiting as you say it is. it's part of the objective of the game. it's like saying tetris is limiting because you can't kill hookers and drive a car in it... that's not part of the gameplay. dropping blocks in neat rows is the gameplay. Forcing the gameplay that is base defense out of the game (by sidestepping it automatically per your suggestion) because you see it as punishment doesn't give anyone any freedom.

would having base attacks come at you at predefined points of the game fix it for you? that your base is attacked regardless if you are playing good or bad. It could hardly be a punishment then could it?

Personally I think that would make it a tad repetitive and predictable in subsequent playthroughs and would prefer it to have some other activator than a specific number on the ticker. Successfully shooting down enough UFOs within a timeframe or area seems to be a good enough mechanic. If you can find any other that you don't see as "playing good" please share.

Edited November 11, 2012 by Gorlom

[ObLoM]

How did my thread get sabotaged into a "should there be base defence?" thread?

[Gorlom]

simple we have had enough "bash XCOM:EU2012" threads already

[ObLoM]

simple we have had enough "bash XCOM:EU2012" threads already

But this wasn't a bash post, this was a "Here's what we can take from EU2012 that's not bad" post!

[Gorlom]

right I confused it with this thread: http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/3668-Me-senslessly-beating-xcom-eu-%282012%29-with-a-stick

Never mind me I'm just talking nonsense.

[Sinfullyvannila]

I think his case comes from the fact that the only way to discourage the aliens from keeping sending ships into the teeth of your base's defense until the end of time is to let one succeed in invading your base and having to risk it's facilities to firefights (So fun when blaster bombs got involved) just so the aliens decide that because they lost one ground party, (when you could have been vaporizing battleship after battleship with Plasma or Blaster Bomb base defenses) they should leave your base alone.

This is in fact my big point about freedom in this case. Sure, you can shoot down scouts, but that leads to more retaliations. There are base defenses, but they are absolutely useless in themselves. The only consistently viable way to deal with them is to let them happen.

And if it's done that way in srsbsns, there's no reason not to do it in a game.

I think you missed my point. Most people don't play poker because the game is fun. They play it because they enjoy gambling. The game isn't(and shouldn't be) designed to be fun in itself, it's designed to make gambling be as interesting as possible.

Even if it weren't purely gambling though, you're still talking about a game rules in the context of competition. People generally don't compete just for the fun of it, they do it for accolades or rewards, and rules in competition are designed for fair play and even competition, not for fun.

Forcing the gameplay that is base defense out of the game (by sidestepping it automatically per your suggestion) because you see it as punishment doesn't give anyone any freedom.

My suggestion doesn't force them out of the game. It gives you an option to deal with them. You still have to make the choice whether you are going to deal with them or not.

If you can find any other that you don't see as "playing good" please share.

How about if you fail to shoot down a UFO, or if you fail a mission, the UFO has a chance to track your aircraft back to the base?

Why is it OK for you to attack alien base, but not OK for them to attack yours?

Because it's a lot easier for a defending force to locate and destroy an invasion beachhead than it is for an attacking force to detect a hidden defensive structure.

Again, I never said "take out base defense". I said if they are going to do it, do it right.

Edited November 14, 2012 by Sinfullyvannila

[Gorlom]

Forcing the gameplay that is base defense out of the game (by sidestepping it automatically per your suggestion) because you see it as punishment doesn't give anyone any freedom.

My suggestion doesn't force them out of the game. It gives you an option to deal with them. You still have to make the choice whether you are going to deal with them or not.

Your suggestion might as well force it out of the game. there is no practical distinction since that is what is going to happen unless you can elaborate and describe the mechanic that motivates you to actually try/do a base defense mission. The choice you claim is still there is just an illusion of a choice. Basically the player is instructed to avoid base defenses and is never forced or have any reason to do base defenses.

The whole concept of base defense loses its point and becomes a broken mechanic where the player doesn't know what the developer wanted to do with it in the first place. It does not contribute to the feeling or the setting that the game is trying to achieve if you can simply avoid it and is encouraged by the game to do so.

If you can find any other that you don't see as "playing good" please share.

How about if you fail to shoot down a UFO, or if you fail a mission, the UFO has a chance to track your aircraft back to the base?

So you want to replace something you have decided to see as bad (despite your own admittance that "you can spin it any way you want", ie see it from other angles) with something utterly horrible? (or don't you see anything wrong with the game being frustrating?) Do you mean it's not the "punishment" aspect you have problems with... that you could happily see the players situation spiral out of control into game over and feel that is a good mechanic? That as long as you don't encounter anything challenging because you did well you are happy? Ignore any reasons as to why the mechanic is actually there? If you encounter it because you are doing well, at least then it stands to reason you can handle the additional challenge. To get it when you are doing poorly is just frustrating and turns it into a really bad mechanic.

This suggestion like an attempt to effectively remove base defenses from the game. Sure it's not technically gone, but you're not likely to encounter it unless you mess up in a very particular manner. You claim you have nothing against base defenses that it is just the principle but reading your posts I can't see any trace of anything but distaste for the missions. You don't try to preserve any important bits when you "fix" it.

Did you read that article about goals and rewards in "Don't starve"? (Just to consider what signals you are sending to the player with certain mechanics)

Did you read the post by Max_Cain about collected information about base defense?

PS. why do you never use the quote or multiquote functions?

Edited November 14, 2012 by Gorlom

[Sinfullyvannila]

Your suggestion might as well force it out of the game. there is no practical distinction since that is what is going to happen unless you can elaborate and describe the mechanic that motivates you to actually try/do a base defense mission. The choice you claim is still there is just an illusion of a choice.

I'm working under the assumption that everything else remains the same. I.E. If you blast down the UFO with AA, the craft is completely obliterated, if you shoot the ship down with an Interceptor, you get limited salvage, if you face the base defence, you get full salvage.

Even if that weren't the case, I don't see how it's a false choice. You choose between spending resources on safety, or risking it and saving resources.

So you want to replace something you have decided to see as bad (despite your own admittance that "you can spin it any way you want", ie see it from other angles) with something utterly horrible? (or don't you see anything wrong with the game being frustrating?) Do you mean it's not the "punishment" aspect you have problems with... that you could happily see the players situation spiral out of control into game over and feel that is a good mechanic?

I have absolutely no problem with the game making you face an uphill battle for making mistakes. Isn't that the whole point of strategy? Eliminating mistakes? That's what happens in every strategy once you make a mistake, it gets harder to recover, and eventually it can spiral out of control. You learn from those mistakes, thus making an effective strategy.

That as long as you don't encounter anything challenging because you did well you are happy? Ignore any reasons as to why the mechanic is actually there? If you encounter it because you are doing well, at least then it stands to reason you can handle the additional challenge. To get it when you are doing poorly is just frustrating and turns it into a really bad mechanic.

The problem is that the only additional challenge from base defence missions in X-Com is due to programming limitations. They are MUCH easier than other missions once you work around those..

This suggestion like an attempt to effectively remove base defenses from the game. Sure it's not technically gone, but you're not likely to encounter it unless you mess up in a very particular manner. You claim you have nothing against base defenses that it is just the principle but reading your posts I can't see any trace of anything but distaste for the missions. You don't try to preserve any important bits when you "fix" it.

What are the important bits? I don't like the base defense missions in X-Com, because aside from the basic design issues I have with them, they are extremely poorly implemented from a technical level.

Did you read that article about goals and rewards in "Don't starve"? (Just to consider what signals you are sending to the player with certain mechanics)

Did you read the post by Max_Cain about collected information about base defense?

I skimmed over the base defense mission thread. I don't know what "Don't Starve" is.

PS. why do you never use the quote or multiquote functions?

I use quote when I respond to just one person. I didn't know of multi-quote.

[Gorlom]

I'm working under the assumption that everything else remains the same. I.E. If you blast down the UFO with AA, the craft is completely obliterated, if you shoot the ship down with an Interceptor, you get limited salvage, if you face the base defence, you get full salvage.

Even if that weren't the case, I don't see how it's a false choice. You choose between spending resources on safety, or risking it and saving resources.

Assuming you can teach this to the player properly. It is not really an obvious choice. The game is simplifying and telling you that avoiding the battle is the right course of action. It would likely seem like the right action until it is too late to change it, and the player might never identify it as the faulting part of his strategy. I still feel that this is a cop out and causes problems instead of fixing them.. basically a worse option that what is already there. why not change other aspects? why not make base defenses happen to everyone regardless of how they play (the way Xenonauts apparently is now)? why give the player the option to avoid it if the options in the original wasn't enough, (and more options are too much according to everyone else)?

I have absolutely no problem with the game making you face an uphill battle for making mistakes. Isn't that the whole point of strategy? Eliminating mistakes? That's what happens in every strategy once you make a mistake, it gets harder to recover, and eventually it can spiral out of control. You learn from those mistakes, thus making an effective strategy.

Facing an uphill battle when performing poorly is inherent in the system. compounding that with additional challenges making it so that one misstep means it is game over is too much. Any additional compounding punishment to a properly balanced drawback is to much. The loss of your soldier, equipment and/or vehicle are sufficient, you don't need to pour extras on top of that because you don't like the idea of facing it when you are doing well. making your gameplay frustrating rather than challenging doesn't provide any benefit.

The problem is that the only additional challenge from base defence missions in X-Com is due to programming limitations. They are MUCH easier than other missions once you work around those..

why don't you change something other than what triggers it then? do you want it to be harder?easier? do you want to change the outcome of losing that mission? Maybe have them destroy research and manufacturer progress? destroy any vehicles in the base and then withdraw allowing you to rebuild?

What are the important bits?

To me it is the feeling and the atmosphere that the base missions provide. The impressions and signals the missions send to the player. These will change drastically if you change the trigger from doing good to doing poorly.

I don't like the base defense missions in X-Com, because aside from the basic design issues I have with them, they are extremely poorly implemented from a technical level.

I still don't fully understand your design issue. You claim it is so horrible to be rubber banded, and at the same time seem to claim there is no point in it since in the original game there wasn't any difficulty... but that is not the part you want to fix in Xenonauts. You want to "fix" the trigger (and in doing so wreck it for every one else that likes the potential of the missions) rather than any of the actual problems with it.

I think that your dislike for the implementation of the missions in the old game is affecting your opinion about their potential. you can never imagine them implemented properly so you are seeking ways to avoid them. That is why you see them as punishment for doing well. If you are deadset on that they are horrible and undesirable I can understand your feeling that you are being punished if you are doing too well. However since you have argued that you are not against the base missions you have given us a faulty impression of what you want.

I skimmed over the base defense mission thread. I don't know what "Don't Starve" is.

Don't starve is a game that comes out soon. There was an article about it's development linked somewhere on the forum. Not sure if I can find it again. It described how the game was almost destroyed by adding goals, rewards and achievements into the game. They gave the wrong signals to the players. when the player was given the goal to survive 5 days he would hide in the corner as to not get eaten. He would stop playing the game. He would act counter intuitive and in a way that was neither enjoyable or intended. Removing the goals, achievements and instructions fixed this. The players started playing the game as the developers wanted it to be played.

PS. why do you never use the quote or multiquote functions?

I use quote when I respond to just one person. I didn't know of multi-quote.

But... you just.... never mind.

Edited November 15, 2012 by Gorlom

[Max_Caine]

*ahem*

That was me.

Here's the article.

It's about the unintended consequences of incentivising player behaviour and it is appropriate to this discussion. However, it is a fairly in-depth article. A lot of it is "what we did wrong", "what we did wrong when we tried to do right" then "what we learnt from it and did right".

[Sinfullyvannila]

Assuming you can teach this to the player properly. It is not really an obvious choice. The game is simplifying and telling you that avoiding the battle is the right course of action. It would likely seem like the right action until it is too late to change it, and the player might never identify it as the faulting part of his strategy. I still feel that this is a cop out and causes problems instead of fixing them.. basically a worse option that what is already there. why not change other aspects? why not make base defenses happen to everyone regardless of how they play (the way Xenonauts apparently is now)? why give the player the option to avoid it if the options in the original wasn't enough, (and more options are too much according to everyone else)?

It would be really easy to teach the pros/cons if you just put a line on the AA's description saying something like "unfortunately, the drawback is that batteries are a little TOO effective, in that they obliterate the target, making it impossible to salvage valuable artifacts from the crash site". Or you could just make them extremely expensive. Or both. And why is it so important whether or not the defense is the "right" choice? As long as both choices have viable pros and cons, the choice is the reward in itself. That's the point, to make it so that there isn't a blatantly right or wrong decisions, so that the decisions themselves are interesting. And like someone said before, base defenses were in the original, my suggestions doesn't add a new choice, it tweaks the old one so that it's viable(which Base Defenses aren't in the original).

Facing an uphill battle when performing poorly is inherent in the system. compounding that with additional challenges making it so that one misstep means it is game over is too much. Any additional compounding punishment to a properly balanced drawback is to much. The loss of your soldier, equipment and/or vehicle are sufficient, you don't need to pour extras on top of that because you don't like the idea of facing it when you are doing well. making your gameplay frustrating rather than challenging doesn't provide any benefit.

Personally, I wouldn't be overly frustrated at all. And that's the whole point of including a failsafe option, to mitigate possible frustration.

why don't you change something other than what triggers it then? do you want it to be harder?easier? do you want to change the outcome of losing that mission? Maybe have them destroy research and manufacturer progress? destroy any vehicles in the base and then withdraw allowing you to rebuild?

Changing the mission's loss outcome would address my particular issue with the design concept. I think it would have other drawbacks like...

To me it is the feeling and the atmosphere that the base missions provide. The impressions and signals the missions send to the player. These will change drastically if you change the trigger from doing good to doing poorly.

Doing the above would change the atmosphere too. I don't mind that there is a loss condition, I just think it's dumb that it's introduced because you were doing well. Exposing you to another lose condition for doing poorly would intensify the "make it or break it" mood of the mission.

Also, this kind of stuff is extremely subjective.

I still don't fully understand your design issue. You claim it is so horrible to be rubber banded, and at the same time seem to claim there is no point in it since in the original game there wasn't any difficulty... but that is not the part you want to fix in Xenonauts. You want to "fix" the trigger (and in doing so wreck it for every one else that likes the potential of the missions) rather than any of the actual problems with it.

I just think rubberbanding is bad in general. I haven't found anyone on any other forum who thinks that the philosophy is a good idea, unless it's just in there as a reverse handicap for people who haven't played the game often(which is why I think that it's ok for it to be an optional feature in competitive games). Which is why I think changing the trigger would solve the problem. I really don't see how it would affect anyone who likes to do base missions negatively in any way, as long as there are valid advantages to doing the base missions, and maybe, which I hadn't thought of before, a way to aggressively "provoke" a base attack, other than just passively doing well.

I think that your dislike for the implementation of the missions in the old game is affecting your opinion about their potential. you can never imagine them implemented properly so you are seeking ways to avoid them. That is why you see them as punishment for doing well. If you are deadset on that they are horrible and undesirable I can understand your feeling that you are being punished if you are doing too well. However since you have argued that you are not against the base missions you have given us a faulty impression of what you want.

I can imagine them implemented properly, which is why I'm making suggestions on how I feel they could be. If it were like you said, I wouldn't even be attempting to do it. Also, to clarify, my suggestions aren't avoiding Base Defenses, they are providing an option to pro-actively deal with them.

I read the Don't Starve article, I'm going to reread it, but from my initial read, I could see where you are coming from with it, but I don't really think it's the best comparison in this argument.

And one last thing, I don't have a problem with the way that Xenonauts is handling Base Defense triggers, just X-Coms way.