Base Simplification Ideas

[GizmoGomez]

I kind of like 10 being the barracks limit. I was thinking 8 would be sufficient, considering two would fill up an endgame dropship to capacity, but then I remembered base defense. Having a few guys back home to guard the front door is a good idea, and you'd have to build a second barracks to house them if you have 8 to a barracks. Granted, two guys isn't all that much, so you'd probably want to build another one anyway, but if you were hurting for space, at least you'd have two slots for base defense, instead of none.

[rynait]

Hello,

after reading alot of criticism on LQ, WkSh, Lab...

what if I suggest this,

WkSh and Lab have "built in living space ie 10", but LQ is smaller (1 by 1), and gives perhaps 12 additional worker (whether it be scientist or tech/engineer).

but cap base to only 2 possible LQ per base (thus can not exceed 34 scientist or 34 tech/engineer at minimum with 2 LQ and 1 Lab or 1 WkSh, thereafter expansion would rely on the 10 add ons thus in my mind if a base had 4 Labs, would be mainteance drain because of burden placed by the higher cost of LQ (versus imagined fraction of the lab.)

on the radar issue,

i would suspect the capability of "exotic" equipment, would be limited to detection. however like all statement, is correct, size of radar dish, power draw, and "signal" refinements extrapolates to range. quantity of the "like" radars extrapolate to detection and signal "verification".

perhaps limit expandable to low power radar (avoid alien detecting xcom's base), high (perhaps 2 by 2) power radar... twice range but is also twice likely be attacked by aliens. thus forcing player to choose low power and avoid alien attacks, or go big then hear alot of expletives "sheeit - alien's coming now".

So I would favor-support two radar building choices... then leave exotic equipment as expansion or upgrade from research results (if any). Workshop/Lab have built in 10 support, and LQ reduced to 1x1 with support for 12 wth higher mainteance cost... (hey plumbing is not cheap neither is laundering bedsheets, but only got it over there in the LQ.)

R

[TrashMan]

The problem with abstracting/handwaving parts of base managment away is that you can do it for ANYTHING.

I can justify removing every single thing you think is great. Does that mean I should?

Even in it's current state, there are decisions to be made. For every building. It takes up X space, costs Y to build, takes T days to build, upkeep is Z and it gives me Q. Do not tell me that those variables are not there for decision making.

In my last game I shot myself in the foot by forgetting to build Living Quarters.

Now, how labs and LQ works I already proposed before.

As for storages - I would give them capacity. I would also make startign weaposn take up room/space. You don't buy them, they don't cost you nothing - but you do set the quantity to keep on base (let's say 10 weapons of each type and 100 ammo clips, 50 missiles, etc..) and every week/month the stores are replenished to that quantity. Other items work as you'd expect.

You can free up sapce by keeping less items on base, but it you ran out in between re-stockign periods? Say you send a team out and while it's out, your base is attacked. You quickly go to assemble a defense team only to realise that the best weapons are with the strike team, and you are left defending the base with just pistols..

I really, REALLY like the way UFO:AI did it (and ufo storage/dissasembly). It just makes so much sense and give player things to do while at the same time slowing down the tech progress.

[GizmoGomez]

The restocking at the end of each month is a cool idea. I just don't want to have to buy every stinking round my people fire, as I have a QM for that. That system would make it more important to not lose your weapon in the field (although if you win, you automatically pick up all the loot in the area, so that would include a discarded RL with no more rockets, or an LMG that ran out of ammo, right?)

[Gauddlike]

And I think the appropraite term for what ou are suggesting would be "dumbing down".

Sadly inaccurate though as I was not suggesting the stores be changed from their current implementation so how did you work out that I suggested it be dumbed down?

I suggested though that the ability to manage your personnel not be removed (as Chris suggested he might) which would be the opposite of dumbing down as it retains more of the management than the stated alternative.

The majority of the simplification suggestions I have made around this are graphical in fact.

So if you have living space for 30 that's the maximum number of scientists + workers that can be assigned to all projects in the base at once.

I quite like your later suggestion about hiring a pool of potential workers as well though, seems quite simple but solves a few problems others have come up with.

Still not so bothered about the stores being reworked to resemble the old x-com model.

I don't recall finding that much fun to fiddle about with but each to their own.

[TrashMan]

That's what the Quatermaster is for...he keeps you stocked to a certain level, but you can always tweak things yourself.

Keeps storage space important, minimizes tedious micromanagment, but at the same time allows you to micromanage if you want it.

[Okim]

Here is an idea of how to remove the hiring/sacking micromanagement, but leave some realism in the game:

1. make all hangars, garages, labs and workshops (plus any similar buildings) require staff (1 unit). They all require some personal to operate after all (hangars and garages need crew to do repairs, refuels, rearming and other stuff).

2. make a living quarters building that accommodate 4 'units' of staff. Its a 1x2 building as it is now. It should be expensive.

3. make a separate barracks building that supports only soldiers. Explain the existence of this building by the need to have extra space for soldier`s gear and quick access to it, some equipment for training and etc.

4. make labs/workshops with fixed amount of personnel and an option to shut down if not needed (freeing up an extra staff unit for other buildings).

5. you can have more buildings than staff that your LQ can support. Undermanned hangars/garages should have their repairing/refuelling/rearming times increased.

This way you can choose to have a few expensive LQs and turn on/off some buildings to free staff or to build extra LQs and loose some precious space + get some extra expenses.

The priority of staff should be as follows:

1. on-line labs

2. on-line workshops

3. hangars

4. garages

And you should select where to put com center, LQ, store and barracks when you build a new base with all those buildings instantly popping up at no extra cost.

[TrashMan]

Not bad. You do need mantainance staff to keep things running.

Of course, I assumed that was what "mantainance cost" of a building was. Paying the minimal staff and spare parts/repairs.

Would all buildings require the same number of staff?

Why not leave the capacity of LQ at 50, and instead have variable personell costs for buildings? And shutting down a building doesn't free up ALL the staff - just most of it.

Mantaining a lab may require 10 people..

just rambling...

[NoSoAna]

To be honest: I like the way how scientists/workers are different entities from the buildings they work in, and that they need a bunk in the living quarters. It may be micromanaging, but it is *good* micromanaging. It helps with the immersion, as it is like "reality". If anything, the scientists should get more functionality attached. Whatever you can think of.

And really, gamers are much more capable than the AAA-producers give them credit for. It is sad to see an indie going the same route of dumbing down everything.

[Hazard]

IMHO, the management part of the OG never really felt tedious, since it didn't take that much time in the end, even though you had to do it rather often. I'm repeating others here, but it indeed was a major part of the "small things" that made the whole organization feel organic and under your control. I'd imagine this impression can be reduced quite a bit by even small simplifications.

And I must say that I really like the quartermaster system TrashMan mentioned. It seems to strike a nice balance between having to buy your starting weapons (dumb for reasons mentioned before) and having the current unlimited supply of them (reasonable, but a bit boring).

[HWP]

Game design also means removing the features that do not present the player with a decision or challenge.

I just shot a guy in the back for wearing a wrong colored shirt.

Was it a decision? By no definition. His shirt was blue, mine was red.

Was it a challenge? Hardly. He was running away, didn't even see me.

Should that element have been removed? You tell me.

[Okim]

Not bad. You do need mantainance staff to keep things running.

Of course, I assumed that was what "mantainance cost" of a building was. Paying the minimal staff and spare parts/repairs.

Would all buildings require the same number of staff?

Why not leave the capacity of LQ at 50, and instead have variable personell costs for buildings? And shutting down a building doesn't free up ALL the staff - just most of it.

Mantaining a lab may require 10 people..

just rambling...

Yes, a single 'staff unit' per building with no actual numbers of people in them. But you can always assume that a single unit consists of ~10 workers - that`s what we will have in labs and workshops and that`s probably enough to staff a hangar/garage.

Using these 'units' will make it much simplier to manage things while variable personnel will just replace one micromanagement layer by another.

'Surplus' staff can provide a boost to hangars (+5% to repair/rearm/refuel speed for example). The more men you have - the faster they deal with interceptor maintainance duties IMHO.

This staff can also be used by all other buildings including command center, radars, med centers etc. The more LQ your base has - the more staff you get - the better output you get from your buildings. There should be a cap or deminishing bonus, so that you can`t have a base with 1 hangar and 35 LQs for 1 sec repair of your fighters

[Gazz]

I just shot a guy in the back for wearing a wrong colored shirt.

Was it a decision? By no definition. His shirt was blue, mine was red.

Was it a challenge? Hardly. He was running away, didn't even see me.

Should that element have been removed? You tell me.

What was the trade-off?

Did you not have those rounds of ammunition for fending off the approaching zombies?

The way you describe the feature it was clearly an optional "just for fun" action that does not enforce additional micromanagement.

Those add colour and immersion at no "cost" - as far as the UI is concerned - and there is no reason to take them out.

Labs, for instance, are a completely different issue. First I build the lab, accept the space constraints and upkeep. Then the game gives me the chore of implementing my own decision again... by making me manually hire the scientists that I obviously intended to have along with the lab. That's a UI problem because the UI should implement the orders of the player, not throw the player's orders right back at him.

The player is supposedly the Xenonauts commander, not some underling working in procurement.

[StellarRat]

I don't think I'd have a problem with facilities including the cost of the personnel that go with it. But it does raise a lot of questions for me. I'm assuming the construction and maintenance would be much higher if you take recruiting costs and salaries into account. However, if your base is attacked how would the repair costs be allocated? If lab is 20% destroyed does that mean 20% of the scientists died too? Would you get a 20% reduction in maintenance costs? That doesn't make a lot of sense to me. Also, if you jack the price of building up to account for personnel, it seems like it would be much harder to gradually ramp up research as you get some extra cash. I'm assuming the initial "buy in" would be much higher since you're going from 0% to 100% staffing immediately. Also, the ongoing maintenance cost would have to be a lot higher to pay for the salaries.

[Gazz]

I'm assuming the construction and maintenance would be much higher if you take recruiting costs and salaries into account. However, if your base is attacked how would the repair costs be allocated? If lab is 20% destroyed does that mean 20% of the scientists died too?

No. The system stays largely as it is. No rebalance at all.

The personnel costs are made part of the research project.

Researching Laser Rifle costs you 8000 $. That's the wages you would have paid. The man hours.

Buildings are buildings. If they are destroyed / damaged, their research / production speed is reduced. The building's "output".

A lab at 10% would only have undamaged facilities for 1 researcher. Simple.

Personnel is abstracted. They don't have names, anyway!

[TrashMan]

What was the trade-off?

The player is supposedly the Xenonauts commander, not some underling working in procurement.

By that logic the tactical part of the game should be removed. The player is the overall commander of Xenonauts, not a field officer.

The player is pretty much given total comand over everything. Including procurment.

The destinction between the lab and people working in it is a good one IMHO. After all, you might want to build a lab in advance, but only hire scientists later. Or sack a few because your budget is tight.

No. The system stays largely as it is. No rebalance at all.

The personnel costs are made part of the research project.

Researching Laser Rifle costs you 8000 $. That's the wages you would have paid. The man hours.

8000$ regardless how many scisntists I throw at it?

That won't do.

Furthermore, given the nature of the project, the duration is impossible to predict, hence why an up-front wages cost is also silly. A scientist doesn't look at a plasma rifle and say "ok, we'll crack this in 32 hours".

Frankly, I think a research system similar to what Sword of the Stars does would be good. Small chances of a breaktrought or a project going overbudget. So it might take longer or shorter to get a tech. And scientists are getting paid as long as research is done.

[StellarRat]

I agree with Trashman. One price just doesn't make any sense. Hell, I can't even get a certain figure on medical care or car repairs half the time! Plasma rifles are definitely going to be tougher to estimate! ;-)

[erutan]

@trashman & stellar - think of it this way, you can pay 1 person to work for 10 days, or 10 people to work for 1. If it costs $2k a day to pay a scientist, it's the same cost for the project, just if you invest in more labs the process goes faster. Yes there are minor variations (human resources, transit, etc) but they can be abstracted away.

I think it makes sense - as an organization you have to build these secure underground facilities which takes time/money, but once they are there you can get scientists from around the world to work on them for the cause. Of course there are daily expenses to keep the scientists alive/well, not to mention all the miscellaneous costs of research - chemicals/compoiunds, specialized equipment, parts to build specialized equipment, replaceable parts, etc so it's not free, there is a set cost to research something. Investing in labs speeds up that process, but doesn't necessarily radically change it. For soldiers you are paying for their misc training as you research things, medical attention, life insurance. Labs likewise would have a set team, techs, and running costs outside of any specific research conducted. Ask anyone that does research, having a lab + staff in no way makes research free.

The problem I see is that unless lab maintenance is very high it becomes a no brainer for the player to stack laboratories.

re: estimates you could work in some interesting effects with variability. If you're researching plasma weapons out of the blue the estimated cost may have a 40% variance, if you've already done some related tech then that could drop to 10%. For major/expensive breakthroughs this adds another layer of choice for the player.

[TrashMan]

What SOTS does is checks the research status each turn/tick (in Xenonauts case, hour?). If the research has passed 50% then there is a small chance of a breaktrough each tick. but as it nears 100% there is also a chance of a delay (that can happen up to 150%)

In Xenonauts term, labs/workshops cost basic mantainance (say 10000$). Scientists/workers require living space if they are to work on the base.

Scientists/workers are not hired up-front - they are brought to the base for each project and paid by the hour (the salary of a scientist was 20,000$... assuming a 12hour work day, that would mean 55$ per hour) as you assign them to a project.

Of course, there is one problem with this approach too - scientists automagicly immediately arrive. Which is kinda silly.

So really, I'm having trouble creating a better system.

[GizmoGomez]

I have an idea.

Originally, I liked the idea of scientists automatically coming with the lab, as that would mean researching could begin immediately upon lab completion. This is assuming that a lab would house scientists as well, which I support. (Just add LQ under or over the lab tile set for base defense, connected by a ladder or something. It wouldn't be that difficult, I'd think.) Say, the lab can house 20 lab coats. When you begin construction, you can order up to 20 scientists, but they won't arrive until you finish the lab, at which time they'll arrive immediately if they'd been ordered more than three days before the lab was finished. That way, we can start researching immediately without losing the ability to have any number of scientists we want.

If we keep the LQ, then there's no need for this ability anyway. But I doubt that we'll be doing that.

As for the actual process of researching, why not leave it how it is? I like it.

Also, maintenance costs cover any fees and materials for research, so why would projects have additional costs attached to them? We can just assume that any left over maintenance costs get pooled for that one research that costs more money then usual. There's no need to make researches cost money.

[erutan]

If Xenonauts is considered 'black ops' it might be easier for member countries (democracies at least) to send trusted people/ some equipment than money (limits to what isn't under public oversight?). Xenonauts might not have to pay staff normal wages, it'd be more for non-standard expenditures and infrastructure etc?

SOTS system sounds like it could work well, though research synergy could fit in with that as well.

To nitpicky, labs generally consist of a team of people, it's not like you just immediately hire 100 scientists for a project and they work together perfectly / are well rounded - getting them with a building makes sense. To make it less obvious to just stack labs there could be DR on the effectiveness. Your second lab adds a lot of potential, the third less so, etc. Still a boost, but not as much. This helps get around one disadvantage of having set numbers of scientists, in that research times become very tiered.

Having project costs + base # of labs seems a bit more realistic to me. We have 2 labs with a complement of their regular lab teams - but for this project we're going to need to bring in some specialists in this particular field, use a lot of expensive materials, have someone engineer custom testing equipment, etc. Having more labs helps speed things up, but there are still set costs with researching something.

[Gazz]

Also, maintenance costs cover any fees and materials for research, so why would projects have additional costs attached to them?

The cost to research would represent the (implied) scientist's wages while the actual scientists are never hired and don't show up on any statistic.

Without that system, the scientist's wages would have to be rolled into building maintenance which would make those buildings extraordinarily expensive if nothing is researched.

The player would still have the option to put research on hold and only pay the building upkeep without paying for the scientists.

That eliminates the need for an entirely new interface to "shut down" a building.

It's the exact same thing as right now. Same cost, same choices - only with less clicking.

[Name]

I like the idea of the SOTS system but is it practical to implement developerwise?

I never minded having to hire scientist and still don't.

As for what seem to be the more important topic about workers and scientist. I don't like the idea of having a fixed amount of scientist come with a building.And before someone replies to this with #blabla abstract well these thing only seem to be abstarcted away on the forums...

I really want interesting gameplay combat wise and managment wise.

[GizmoGomez]

@Gazz - I thought that we were assuming kind-hearted scientists who were donating their time and expertise in order to avoid total annihilation of the human race. If they want to make $60 an hour off that, then there's something wrong. (Maybe not, what I'd do is different then what everyone else'd do.)

I understand what you're saying though, and now that I get it I kind of like it. It makes it so that it's only expensive when you are actually producing material, otherwise there's not much cost.

Part of me still wants scientists to be hirable, though. That way, if you want to pay through the nose, you can research everything super fast. I've come to recognize that when I play games, my implied motto is often Knowledge is Power. If I have researched everything, I have the advantage.

[StellarRat]

@Gazz - I thought that we were assuming kind-hearted scientists who were donating their time and expertise in order to avoid total annihilation of the human race. If they want to make $60 an hour off that, then there's something wrong. (Maybe not, what I'd do is different then what everyone else'd do.)

I think the scientists/engineers could be volunteers or even paid by their respective countries. However, it also seems to me that the cost of research is mostly for supplies, instruments and the like (not salaries.) These guys probably need some very sophicated and expensive equipment to carry out their work, like particle accelerators, super-coolers, electron microscopes, spectrum analysis stuff, etc... and I haven't even mentioned the stuff for biology ... all in all that stuff ain't cheap. I can't imagine that they'll know upfront what supplies and equipment they're going to need not to mention that many of the experiments and instruments would have to be designed and custom built by engineers (again at great expense.) That type of stuff would a POST construction ongoing expense i.e. maintenance in Xenonaut speak. The only logical way to account for that would be to charge by scientist since you can't really measure the amount of research unless we switch to the SOTS system. Edited February 28, 2013 by StellarRat