V19 Experimental Build 3 available!

[Selvhan]

The X-com plane were better be cause you could disengage anytime and your long range missile could crash a lot of ufo before you had to change to something else. In this game however, your plane can't stay out of the range of the ufo's weapon... so yes, they need to figure out a way to balance the air part.

Immortal plane ? No. But maybe it could be like it was in Apoc : You can get them relatively cheap but there is a fixed amount each month.

[StellarRat]

The X-com plane were better be cause you could disengage anytime and your long range missile could crash a lot of ufo before you had to change to something else. In this game however, your plane can't stay out of the range of the ufo's weapon... so yes, they need to figure out a way to balance the air part.

Immortal plane ? No. But maybe it could be like it was in Apoc : You can get them relatively cheap but there is a fixed amount each month.

It was possible to achieve air superiority in Apoc too. If you shot down enough of their ships they quit coming and you had to finish them off in the other dimension. That's what happened to me anyway. Air combat was definitely NOT the only focus of that game.

[StellarRat]

The X-com plane were better be cause you could disengage anytime and your long range missile could crash a lot of ufo before you had to change to something else. In this game however, your plane can't stay out of the range of the ufo's weapon... so yes, they need to figure out a way to balance the air part.

That's true. In the old game the UFO's were always trying escape from your fighters or least were hopelessly slower, so you could disengage at will. You could also trail and engage with a ton of fighters I can't remember how many, but it was like six or eight at once. To shoot down a mothership it took a lot.

[Anon_Spartan]

I know I'm inviting flames by saying this, but the death spiral is one of the things I believe was most important in X-Com, and therefore should be present in its successor Xenonauts. The whole idea was that if you sucked enough, you would lose. Not lose a battle, not lose some planes. You would lose the game. And then you would have to start over and play again. And you'd hopefully do better but still likely lose. And as you did it, you would get further each time, and the game would cement itself in your mind.

And while i'm not sure about later UFOs, I know that at least early in the game, you get UFO's 'shot down' (even though they're completely intact:confused:) by allied forces that you can loot. So even if you lose all of your planes in a terrible mistake you can still have some recourse and income. If anything, make this more common. Perhaps on Easy, every 10 days the player gets a freebie. On Medium it's every 15. Hard and Insane wouldn't have it. This could stop when scouts would stop appearing, or maybe include some bigger ships. This way, players can at least get some kind of income even if terrible fortune blasted them. Plus they get to avoid the apparently reviled air combat mini game.

Maybe someone who has made it past november can correct me, but if Tier 2 aircraft only have more health and speed, that doesn't justify the Corsair costing 8 times as much as an Interceptor, especially when I believe their damage is identical (Both carry two torpedoes and a light weapon). Unless the Corsair holds 4 light missiles or something, I believe this is ridiculous in terms of balance. Also, a well stocked lab should take a week at most to make one (with the standard being 3 days to get another Interceptor) so if you lose them, which you should, you're not doomed.

If air combat is to be made less of a big deal without being axed, then certainly decrease the price and construction time for aircraft. Make a Corsair only $150,000, maybe take 6 days to make with a single stocked workshop (remember that you need a vacant hangar to make one so you don't want to leave yourself under-staffed for too long). By the time Corsairs are available, you should be pulling over $200,000 from crash sites (using v18 terms, not sure what the changes are) so if you lost one, you can replace it and still have some spare cash. If you lost 2, then you really suck, better replace it with an interceptor until you can afford better.

You could also make the price of the three interceptors 50,000 -> 100,000 -> 150,000 and the three MiGs 200,000 -> 300,000 -> 400,000, which would make replacing lost planes even easier. Maybe the bombers could even be knocked down a peg, although the price tag for the first bomber does feel right to me. Those things really can turn a fight around unless there are heavy fighters everywhere.

[Chris]

No, the reason why we're making the air combat comparatively less important is that it is disproportionately important at the moment. Taking losses in the air combat or getting the air combat wrong is more likely to end your game than playing the ground combat missions badly.

X-Com is not an air combat minigame simulator. X-Com has two main elements, the ground combat and the strategic research layer. The air combat is a small minigame that shouldn't have a huge effect on the way the game ends.

We're demoting the air combat, because the people who buy an X-Com remake can reasonably expect to be playing a game that primarily rewards them for playing the turn-based ground combat well, and also making sensible choices about the financial management of their organisation. The defining characteristic of how well they do in the game should not be how good they are at a minigame that was only a small part of the original game. If we're selling an X-Com remake, the game should fit the advertising.

If you're good at the air combat, you're going to be able to do better in the game than someone who is not good at it - and it'll be there for you to play if you enjoy it. But between the auto-resolve and the invulnerable interceptors, a player who has no interest in the air combat minigame is still going to be able to finish the game provided that they play the ground combat and strategic management aspects well. This is not "dumbing down" or "EZ mode", it's just making the game fit with people's expectations of it.

[Chris]

The post above may seem a little aggressive in tone - it's not intended to be, I just wrote it in a bit of a hurry.

[Went]

The post above may seem a little aggressive in tone - it's not intended to be, I just wrote it in a bit of a hurry.

Chris, may I know when most critical CTD's will be fixed? I want to continue testing, but these bugs don't let me to play longer than one month from start

[Jemar]

Please do not reduce the value of air combat success! This is vital key feature, that makes game far more exciting than any previous XCOM, except may be XCOM Apocalypse, where combat with Valkyres and Air Warriors, catching UFOs emerging from portals was really serious part of the game.

[ThunderGr]

X-Com is not an air combat minigame simulator. X-Com has two main elements, the ground combat and the strategic research layer. The air combat is a small minigame that shouldn't have a huge effect on the way the game ends.

I am one of the many that disagrees with that sentiment, as it is so very obvious from the various posts in the forums.

We're demoting the air combat, because the people who buy an X-Com remake can reasonably expect to be playing a game that primarily rewards them for playing the turn-based ground combat well, and also making sensible choices about the financial management of their organisation. The defining characteristic of how well they do in the game should not be how good they are at a minigame that was only a small part of the original game. If we're selling an X-Com remake, the game should fit the advertising.

I, also, disagree with that. Most people who have, actually, played and loved the original were looking forward for some remake that would correct the "trivial approach" the original had towards the importance of Air Combat. As I have proposed already, you can have a difficult time on air and still be able to advance, trying to turn the odds, if you can have ground missions despite your poor air-combat performance. We do not expect to be "rewarded" by doing better on one part while we suck at the other.

If you're good at the air combat, you're going to be able to do better in the game than someone who is not good at it - and it'll be there for you to play if you enjoy it. But between the auto-resolve and the invulnerable interceptors, a player who has no interest in the air combat minigame is still going to be able to finish the game provided that they play the ground combat and strategic management aspects well. This is not "dumbing down" or "EZ mode", it's just making the game fit with people's expectations of it.

Again the same argument as before. You will soon have as much whining by those you are trying to please with that, as soon as they realize that the auto-resolve will produce worst results for them than playing the actual game as you have from us for putting indestructible interceptors. It seems to me that the desired outcome from the decisions about that aspect of the game is not what you have hoped for. It is never too late to see that and think again about it.

Btw, having no interest in the air combat when playing a planetary defense simulation sounds ridiculous. And, despite appearances, the O.G. had given quite enough importance to the air combat, something that no other remake managed to do, so far. I am one of the many that have been expecting for a remake to give the air combat, at least, the importance it had in the O.G. It is frustrating to see that, for some reason, you think that the players wanting to play an XCOM remake do not want an important and detailed air combat!!

[Duke]

oh. pls just put invulnerable interceptors on easy. on insane make it mortal. its simple

[Chris]

Went - there will be a later hotfix today that fixes most of the crashes.

ThunderGr - you're making the assumption that the loudest voices on the forum represent the wishes of the majority of people who play the game, whereas in reality forums usually just represent the most hardcore players. I'm happy to listen to forum users, but remember that you don't necessarily represent the views of all players (as your reply seems to suggest) - just a section of the playerbase.

Your logic seems muddled, too. You want an X-Com remake, but you also want the constituent elements of the game changed fundamentally? Whatever your opinion may be about the importance of the air combat in X-Com, as far as I'm concerned it is a very small part of the game. There is almost nothing you can do to influence the outcome of an aerial battle during the combat in the original game, except choosing when to press "Retreat Fighter".

Everything you can do to affect it (the equipment of your interceptors, sending multiple interceptors etc) is not part of the combat, it's part of the strategic game that happens before the air combat. This will still be part of Xenonauts.

Also, you assume that the game will be super-easy because your aircraft are indestructible. If your aircraft are out of action for a week or two when they are shot down and aren't getting an increase in power, you still won't be able to shoot down a tough UFO with a weak aircraft and if you try you'll just lose the use of that interceptor until it is fixed up. You still need to get the right interceptors to the right place at the right time.

If you're completely convinced that it's a good idea having a major new part of the game requiring an entirely new set of skills, then you'll be able to come up with a mod for it. It'll probably take about 5 minutes.

[ThunderGr]

If you're completely convinced that it's a good idea having a major new part of the game requiring an entirely new set of skills, then you'll be able to come up with a mod for it. It'll probably take about 5 minutes.

I will be more than happy to mod it, if the game is made in such a way that it allows it. You cannot mod something that the developers have provided no support for, right? Although I doubt it will only take 5 minutes, but this is irrelevant.

I would also like to say, in regard with the rest of the reply, that I pointed out the air combat to not have been as trivial as people advocate for in the O.G. and that no remake has managed to reproduce the complexity of the original game, in regards to air-combat, so far.

It is common knowledge that no XCOM remake or the original had, ever, indestructible interceptors. So, I wonder, who makes a fundamental change here?

I do not assume the game to be easy because of the indestructible interceptors, I(like many of the other players) think it unrealistic and a game-breaker.

As for the loudest voices, I have seen people that have never posted anything, pop-in to protest about the indestructible interceptors. Except from myself and a couple of other posters, I do not see many other people to be protesting about things you have decided to not include(like random maps), in the same fervor like they are protesting about the indestructible interceptors. You have to admit that this is the one thing that has gotten an unusual number of people riled up against. So, perhaps you can consider this to be a hint about what the majority is, on this matter.

EDIT: However, I am not an advocate for "the majority is right", thing. I hope it is understood that my comments are good-willed in the hopes they can assist you in making a better game. I do not imply you need to follow the opinions or advices of anyone in the forums. Everything is only suggestions. I am waiting, anxiously, to see the final result of your efforts and hope that it will be the best remake produced for X-COM, ever. Just for clarification.

Edited July 12, 2013 by ThunderGr

[C. jejuni]

It is incorrect that everyone is riling against the effect the "invulnerable planes" would have on the gameplay. If you take care to read more thoroughly you will see that there are a lot of people who agree with mitigating the impact of plane losses, just disagreeing with how it would be implemented for reasons of immersion.

In how far is the original air combat more complex instead of just differently presented? I haven't played it, but I read up on it and it doesn't seem much more complicated, though some mechanics are different.

Edited July 12, 2013 by C. jejuni

[ThunderGr]

It is incorrect that everyone is riling against the effect the "invulnerable planes" would have on the gameplay. If you take care to read more thoroughly you will see that there are a lot of people who agree with mitigating the impact of plane losses, just disagreeing with how it would be implemented for reasons of immersion.

Meaning, they all protest about indestructible interceptors as a solution. And I did not say "everyone", I said an "unusually high number of people".

[C. jejuni]

Certainly, but not about the replacement mechanism.

That was just a phrase.

[ThunderGr]

In how far is the original air combat more complex instead of just differently presented? I haven't played it, but I read up on it and it doesn't seem much more complicated, though some mechanics are different.

You can intercept with many interceptors. Adjust attack distance according to weapon range or tail or disengage. UFOs can choose to escape, unexpectedly. Quite often you are in the UFO's range and your interceptors are in danger...etc. Sorry, reading about it is not enough. You have to play it from beginning to end and face the problems related to air combat in order to grasp it.

[Chris]

I will be more than happy to mod it, if the game is made in such a way that it allows it. You cannot mod something that the developers have provided no support for, right? Although I doubt it will only take 5 minutes, but this is irrelevant.

I already said earlier on in the thread that this will be a moddable switch. Modding it will involve going into a text file and changing "true" to "false".

In any case, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can understand people's viewpoints on the matter and I have read and noted them, but I still don't agree with them. There's probably not much point me debating it further at this stage as it's unlikely to change my mind nor the minds of those who I'm debating it with, so I'll bow out again at this point.

[Shrelock]

Meaning, they all protest about indestructible interceptors as a solution. And I did not say "everyone", I said an "unusually high number of people".

I respect your opinion but i do feel that your not looking at the big picture.

While having indestructable interceptors is different you have to realise that it currently takes 72 hours to recover, then however long it takes to fully repair the interceptor, on average this can take anywhere from 5 days to weeks depending on the interceptor. Further more during this period it is groubnded the entire time, the only thing you save on is money however your screwed as i have been when my intercepters were downed by a carrier and it's escorts only to be hit by a base attack about a week later.

Sure you could decomission the downed interceptor and order / build a new one if your into that and have money to burn. But the indestructable is no doubt a toggle option for the most part such as the use of Ironman mode.

While you do speak as if a large amount of users feel this, surely they would of already spoke about it here on the forum. I just think that your making too big of a fuss over this. really all goldhawk want to do is shift the focus off this and onto Ground combat and the strategic elements of the game. It is beta for a reason after all. and theres no doubt that indestructable interceptors will have a toggle and if there isnt well it wouldn't take long for a modder to create a mod for it.

[Mytheos]

I already said earlier on in the thread that this will be a moddable switch. Modding it will involve going into a text file and changing "true" to "false".

In any case, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can understand people's viewpoints on the matter and I have read and noted them, but I still don't agree with them. There's probably not much point me debating it further at this stage as it's unlikely to change my mind nor the minds of those who I'm debating it with, so I'll bow out again at this point.

I think it would help Chris, if you gave a better line of reasoning why you feel Immortal Interceptors are the best idea?

If you explained your thoughts more, I think it may provide insight so that maybe we could see what you are seeing.

There are hundreds of posts on this forum about it, far more than any other topic, and people have spent many hours trying to come up with reasonable solutions, the most recent ones putting more emphasis on reducing Dev time.

I personally cant wrap my mind around why it is better or see any benefits it provides vs other solutions.

If you feel it best surely you must have a list of pros and cons written down somewhere?

You say you want less emphasis on Air Combat and I understand that, but wont a simple easy to learn/use Auto Resolve help most people with that?

Wont continuing to balance Air Combat help people with that?

Wont further balance of the economy help that?

It just seems like to attach yourself to that idea there must be some clear and obvious reasoning behind it..several things that make it better by far than anything else?

It seems no one else can figure it out as obviously much thought has been put into it...and why would people continue to find alternate solutions if it makes sense to them?

I have not read a single post from anyone on this forum saying, Immortal Interceptors are a good idea, here is why....I have only heard I am cool with it, or ok thats fine now move on to more important things.

Your fans, supporters, and customers value the fact that you talk to us and listen to our concerns, and we in turn would like to hear yours on this topic.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Mytheos

[Anon_Spartan]

Don't worry Chris, compared to others posting in this thread your post is amazingly civil.

I do agree completely with minimizing air combat's importance during the beta so that actual testing of gameplay can be done. Hopefully it can be addressed at the end in some way or another.

[Orangehat44]

I already said earlier on in the thread that this will be a moddable switch. Modding it will involve going into a text file and changing "true" to "false".

In any case, I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. I can understand people's viewpoints on the matter and I have read and noted them, but I still don't agree with them. There's probably not much point me debating it further at this stage as it's unlikely to change my mind nor the minds of those who I'm debating it with, so I'll bow out again at this point.

It's comments like these that make you really need a pr guy....

You have basically just said your giving up on it so changing from "true to false" isnt the only needed mod if we still need to balance it after just turning it on. Also its alittle condescending to assume we all know how to mod your game. I'm a mechanical engineer, I can write code in matlab for work... that, using CAD, and playing games are my computer knowledge, and have 0 interest in digging thru the text files of your game.

I agree with alot of what Mytheos has said. Why are we making huge fundemental changes when the last addition to air combat was giving the light scouts the ability to evade, and less missiles for foxtrots... hardly a balancing pass. Little has been done with balancing the economy... Nations all give the same funding....

All these things contribute to why it feels so painful financially when you loose a plane... but none of these things are close to balanced yet. I don't recall any attempts at tweaking how much damage planes take or what downs them. Different difficulty levels could make planes much more resilient in easy/normal, but more fragile higher.

Might want to change the wording on your game overview then.... http://www.xenonauts.com/air-combat/

Really talks it up the complexity and challenge as a game feature...

[Mytheos]

Orangehats44's thought of Having a Public Representative would be a good idea.

You could just have someone call you and talk to you in person or chat with you via Instant Messaging.

You could spend 10 minutes doing this to relay to them your thoughts, feelings and intentions, and they could function to provide reasoning and insight to the community in a proper way.

I am sure one of your forum moderators would be happy to do that for you for free. (Or if they are overworked you could find another moderator to to help carry the load)

This would save you time and reduce the number of posts you need to make on the forums to explain things

[Chris]

Orangehat - I disagree about needing a PR guy.

Mytheos - there's already been a 20 page thread discussing the Indestructible Interceptors. A lot of the forum regulars contributed there and there was a mixed reaction to the idea, some liked it and some did not. My reasoning is in there, and the fact I've already discussed it at length means I'm not really willing to do it again.

It's probably worth reading that for full details, as I made the decision to implement the interceptor change after that thread and that's why I'm possibly being a bit over-sensitive about the complains in this thread (as they've already been debated to death).

However, I'll give a quick summary here.

The pros are:

• Mistakes in the air combat are less likely to ruin your game than mistakes in the ground combat or strategic level of the game, fitting the two main parts of the original X-Com formula.
  
• Aircraft can be "big ticket" items that are significantly more expensive and time consuming to build than weapons and armour (realistic), without also completely financially ruining the game if one is lost.
  
• It's much easier to balance, and makes progression smoother and will let us produce a more tightly balanced and exciting Geoscape invasion.
  
• If players lose aircraft due to an auto-resolve in a battle they think they should have won, it'll be hugely frustrating. It'll be very difficult to produce an auto-resolve system that can accurately account for all of the situations and also match player's expectations of the results of a combat. Therefore I only really think auto-resolve will work if we have invulnerable interceptors.
  

The cons are:

• It can be immersion breaking for some players (partially negated by referring to it as a "crash land", with the Xenonauts recovering the crashed chassis and fixing it up over a prolonged period).
  
• Some people see it as dumbing down the game (partially negated by the fact that a significant "repair" time penalty for shot down interceptors means losing planes will still hurt).
  

As I say, you can read the full thread for the earlier discussion but that's a summary. To be honest, I'm pretty sure there'd only be about 10% of the current fuss about the system had we referred to it as "Xenonauts recover crashed interceptors and repair them over a couple of weeks" rather than "invulnerable interceptors" but internally we've been referring to it as indestructible interceptors and that's what Aaron put in his patch notes.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Chris
Now a bit less rude.

[Mytheos]

@Chris

I have read every post in this thread and the other main ones, some several times.

I understand what many of the problems are...

-Mistakes in the air combat are less likely to ruin your game than mistakes in the ground combat or strategic level of the game, fitting the two main parts of the original X-Com formula.

It mitigates the punishment, but so will and can many other systems but in much more realistic and generally acceptable way, especially once these systems are fine tuned.

Aircraft can be "big ticket" items that are significantly more expensive and time consuming to build than weapons and armour (realistic), without also completely financially ruining the game if one is lost.

(So you are taking Initial Cost + Initial Time + Additional Cost Per Loss + Additional Time Per Loss ... and replacing it with Initial Cost + Initial Time + Recovery Time per Loss)

So essentialy allowing people without money to still have access to planes without waiting until end of month finances, and focusing the penalty more on Time vs Money.

I understand that.

But I still put forth better solutions are out there, even incorporating something as simple as more "Foreign Forces shoot down a UFO, please send your dropship over missions" (Already in the game) for people with heavy aircraft losses would do the same.

If they get too many planes shot down, the time spent recovering them will still cause a Game Over, it will still ask players to figure out what they are doing wrong, but it will drag out the eventual Game Over more.

And once they figure it out, they are going to just restart anyways as who wants to be behind 25% of an entire month due to a few planes shot down?

Wont most people new to the game Save/load and practice this? People save/loading a few times seems better that a system that could create a negative image of the game.

(I still am trying to get 3 friends of mine to buy the game, but one saw the Immortal Interceptors thing...told the others and now when I talk to them, they comment with explicatives and change the subject)

+ If players lose aircraft due to an auto-resolve in a battle they think they should have won, it'll be hugely frustrating. It'll be very difficult to produce an auto-resolve system that can accurately account for all of the situations and also match player's expectations of the results of a combat. Therefore I only really think auto-resolve will work if we have invulnerable interceptors.

If they loose auto battles they feel they should have won, its due to Auto Resolve allowing too great a degree of variance, or them not understanding air combat in the first place. And if Auto Resolve is kept simple, which I put forth is a good idea, it should be quick and easy to figure out...amounting to Plane A vs UFO B = High Success, Moderate Success, or Low Success.

Which should be easy to pick up? I mean really its just trying different combinations and finding which ones work best, basic trial and error.

If it is overly complex or has the range of result too greatly varied, then that would be the thing to work on it would seem.

So again the only thing I am taking away from your line of reasoning is, this is simplest for us to work with.

The hundreds of posts about it would suggest that maybe the simplest solution isnt the best received one...and I cant help but feel even if it takes a little bit more work another more accepted solution could be found.

I appreciate greatly your time and work on this game, and I respect your thoughts, and I know time and money must be saved and managed as best it can.

Edited July 12, 2013 by Mytheos

[Chris]

This is my final post on the topic, for real this time

But I've commented on the auto-resolve thing in the other thread you posted. Basically, the potential mix of weapons and aircraft / UFO types means that a simple mathematical formula is always going to produce some odd results with auto-resolve. It's difficult to represent the fact a torpedo is devastating against craft that can dodge, and useless against those that can dodge - or that a cannon will mince lightly-armoured UFOs but not so much the ones with heavy armour.

Because UFO squadrons often have a mix of a main heavy UFO and two fighter escorts, and you yourself can mix dogfighting interceptors with craft that are weak in dogfights, you'll always struggle to come up with something that won't occasionally cause an improbable victory or loss. And people will remember and be very angry about the improbable losses if they've had their planes destroyed forever because of it.

So fundamentally I don't think a simple auto-resolve will ever work perfectly, and a complex one is just as likely to have strange side-effects due to all the added variables at play. So I see what you're saying, but having discussed it internally we don't think it will work very well.

And that's quite enough from me on the topic. I hope everyone will now at least understand the reasons why I'm doing this, even if they don't agree with the change. I'm also confident that once everything is working as intended, many of the non-believers will warm to the idea.