Milestone 2 impressions

[Komandos]

55 minutes ago, Vitruviansquid said:

 and you know you haven't addressed the main point they're trying to make, which is that they'd like to see your suggestion about how to shape the game come with an explanation of how it'd make the game more interesting in terms of the choices a player would have to decide to make.

Those who have played UFO:1-2, X-COM:3 games have the right to demand that the X2 game retains the possibility of the following in-game choices: self-identify as a "squad commander" or self-identify as a "platoon commander".

[Vitruviansquid]

Okay, this is probably the last reply you're gonna get out of me, so let me make this one count.

2 hours ago, Komandos said:

In the game "Warcraft", "Start Craft" there were even more soldiers (units). Someone found it tedious and therefore played the game "Doom", where the player had only one character under control. It is normal if tactics at the platoon level have the number of soldiers equal to one platoon, and tactics at the army level have the number of soldiers, which is already in the hundreds.

Yeah, we know there are different games with different scales.

You might notice that Warcraft and Doom also have entirely different control schemes, entirely different pacing, and are in entirely different genres. But we're talking about Xenonauts 2, a game which has already had a Kickstarter campaign and a closed beta, and is now in open beta. You are really not beating the allegations that you are using sophistry or that you honest-to-god just have no idea what you're talking about, if you are implying that Xenonauts 2 can now pivot to being a game on an entirely different scale on a whim.

2 hours ago, Komandos said:

The argument that it is better for players to self-identify themselves in the game as a squad leader (manage soldiers in one squad) than to self-identify themselves as a platoon commander (manage soldiers in one platoon) is not an argument that this is a good thing to have.

The old UFO: 1-2, X-COM:3 games are good because the player had a choice: to be a "platoon commander" or a "squad commander". I don't see any advantage in the fact that the game deprives the player of the opportunity to choose.

The first paragraph here is built on the interpretation that my argument is about how players self-identify in the game (I think you really meant to say "self insert," but that's neither here nor there). And that's a misrepresentation of what I said, because I clearly said, "It was tedious to keep track of," as my reason for disliking 26 soldiers in those games.

And the second paragraph is kind of telling me you either didn't play those old Xcom games or you had no idea what you were looking at when you played them, because no, it wasn't really about player choice to be a "platoon commander" or a "squad commander." In UFO Defense, you had to start with the Skyranger and bring 14 soldiers because that was the best tech available, and then when you upgraded to Avenger and got to bring 26 soldiers, it wasn't really a choice because you were just handicapping yourself if you didn't bring more soldiers when the game let you.

These were games that set a challenge in front of the player and tasked them to defeat the challenge, but you're talking about them like they're sandbox role-playing games. Jesus Christ, man, did you just think readers wouldn't notice that you're talking about UFO Defense like it was Stardew Valley or Minecraft, or is this really an actual argument you thought would sway people?

2 hours ago, Komandos said:

Those who have played UFO:1-2, X-COM:3 games have the right to demand that the X2 game retains the possibility of the following in-game choices: self-identify as a "squad commander" or self-identify as a "platoon commander".

This is the first thing you've typed in this thread that I agreed with.

Yeah, you have the right to "demand" the game to be anything. Let's just be a bit more honest about your demands, alright?

You can "demand" that a machine gun in the game weighs just as much as a machine gun in real life or whatever other thing. When people ask you why you'd want that, just say it like it is: it appeals to your sense of immersion and you've given absolutely no thought to how it'd impact game balance or how much other people would enjoy the game or, in fact, what genre the game set out to be, or what the lead developer has said about the direction he wants to take the game in, or the other objections that I think you routinely read from other posters when you bring up your ideas.

Edit: Oh yeah, and if it helps, naming yourself "Kommandos" and then having your avatar be a picture of a sad little blue-eyed, blond-haired boy isn't a great look if you want people to tolerate the sophistry you try to put out on the internet.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Vitruviansquid

[Komandos]

You use demagoguery by turning to the opponent's personality in an argument and attributing sophistry to him, instead of refuting his arguments.

 

1 hour ago, Vitruviansquid said:

and then when you upgraded to Avenger and got to bring 26 soldiers, it wasn't really a choice because you were just handicapping yourself if you didn't bring more soldiers when the game let you.

You are mistaken (or lying). It was the player's choice: take 26 of his soldiers or much less into battle with a very small UFO (with one alien). It was the player's choice: take 26 of his soldiers with him or much less to fight a small UFO (6 aliens). It was the player's choice to take 26 of his soldiers or much less into battle with a large UFO (12 aliens). There were few battles in the game in which the player had to fight more than 26 aliens.

1 hour ago, Vitruviansquid said:

Edit: Oh yeah, and if it helps, naming yourself "Kommandos" and then having your avatar be a picture of a sad little blue-eyed, blond-haired boy isn't a great look if you want people to tolerate the sophistry you try to put out on the internet.

This technique on your part is sophistry (a way of conducting an unfair dispute). The correctness of the statement (as an example) "2 + 2 = 4" does not depend on the nickname or avatar.

[Komandos]

4 hours ago, Skitso said:

...and with these replies you just proved my point. No point to continue this discussion.

I have already explained many times on this forum why to change the genre from "tactics at the squad/platoon level" (UFO:1-2, X-COM:3) the genre of "tactics at the department level" is a bad idea.

1. You lose some of the fans of the game UFO:1-2, X-COM:3.

2. There are many games on the market in the genre of "tactics at the department level" and of better quality.

3. You disrupt the economic balance of the game, where the mechanics are designed for heavy combat losses among soldiers, and spend a lot of time eliminating the problems that have arisen from using the old mechanics for a new concept.

4. A wider variety of combat missions and a wider variety of tactical situations and tactical tasks.

Edited December 11, 2023 by Komandos

[Komandos]

21 hours ago, Vitruviansquid said:

This is a word salad trying to pass off a non-argument as if it was an intelligible response to the (extremely straightforward) thing Skitso said.

Such an objection is not proof that you are right. If I called your comments a "word salad" would you take such a comment as a valid argument that refutes all your arguments?