V19 Experimental Build 3 available!

[Mytheos]

oh. i buy early acces so i can post my opinion as any one who did it. and it constructive. you post random bullshit when i try to make this game better

and yes. my english sucks.

@Xenomorph

If we arent going to pick on the several casuals wanting to Auto the entire game and play it as little as possible, lets not pick on probably the only person on the forum with balls big enough to play a beta build on Insane Ironman.

And if he wants Insane to be hard, I think thats a perfectly logical thing to expect...thus it being called Insane. If Insane is reasonable, its fail, as it isnt meant for people looking for reasonable.

And also he is probably one of the VERY few people testing this on Insane so his feedback should be considered to have a particular value.

But we also have to understand his first language isnt English, and and he probabaly does come off a touch bitter...but can you blame the guy?

I was bitter as hell too when I played XCOM2012 and seeing the mockery they made it into...but we all have our opinions

Edited July 10, 2013 by Mytheos

[StellarRat]

We're supposed to be testing the balance on NORMAL difficulty. Goldhawk isn't working on the other levels yet. We have to have a stable, balanced, NORMAL setting to use as a baseline for the other levels. Ironman doesn't need to be balanced because that just means you can't restore a save if you lose, so there is no "balance" to adjust on that. Obviously, it makes the game much harder no matter what level you're playing at.

Edited July 10, 2013 by StellarRat

[ThunderGr]

oh. another good game will be casual becouse some people cant leran to play in tactiks game. please do insane realy harcore. all old fun s of that game want it

I am with you.

@Duke

If you want some really hard core super duper hard pull your hair off type of gameplay, go play Apocalypse in Supehuman, real-time ONLY, and force yourself on Iron Man mode.

You'll be crying like a baby when you lose all your squad 10 seconds into a mission.

Yeah, right. As if I haven't done that. In fact, I was playing apocalypse only on real mode and enforced Ironman. However, I do not think mocking someone that wants what should have been the normal difficulty to, at least make it to insane. When apocalypse was made, strategy game players still had a spine and knew how to appreciate the real magic of a strategy game. Not that I was very fond of that game in the series. TFTD will always be my best.

oh. i buy early acces so i can post my opinion as any one who did it. and it constructive. you post random bullshit when i try to make this game better

I second that.

and yes. my english sucks.

Not apparent from the posts I have read. Looks like pretty acceptable english to a foreigner like me.

I believe the consensus is that 19-3 is unplayable...so...no one is playing it.

So if you want to keep playing, dont update.

Truly, that! It is the first build since the initial experimental that has so many CTDs.

@Xenomorph

If we arent going to pick on the several casuals wanting to Auto the entire game and play it as little as possible, lets not pick on probably the only person on the forum with balls big enough to play a beta build on Insane Ironman.

And if he wants Insane to be hard, I think thats a perfectly logical thing to expect...thus it being called Insane. If Insane is reasonable, its fail, as it isnt meant for people looking for reasonable.

And also he is probably one of the VERY few people testing this on Insane so his feedback should be considered to have a particular value.

But we also have to understand his first language isnt English, and and he probabaly does come off a touch bitter...but can you blame the guy?

I was bitter as hell too when I played XCOM2012 and seeing the mockery they made it into...but we all have our opinions

Mytheos the Peacekeeper . You should let some flames going, you know. Looks like Xenomorph has advocated watering down the game all the way since the beginning. I am sure he is in league with the developers or something .

[Mytheos]

We're supposed to be testing the balance on NORMAL difficulty. Goldhawk isn't working on the other levels yet. We have to have a stable, balanced, NORMAL setting to use as a baseline for the other levels. Ironman doesn't need to be balanced because that just means you can't restore a save if you lose, so there is no "balance" to adjust on that. Obviously, it makes the game much harder no matter what level you're playing at.

My main point was he was playing on Insane.

And I was just saying you are obviously talking about a guy that REALLY wants a challenge thus why I point out the Ironman part.

So if you dont bash the casuals dont bash the hardcore.

But I agree I begrudgingly play on normal as I feel it provides the best feedback since it is beta.

But you cant deny someone playing on Insane is a bad thing either, if it leads to just one different perspective or new thought that has the potential to have a significant impact on the quality of the game...go for it right?

Edited July 10, 2013 by Mytheos

[StellarRat]

I suppose, but considering they haven't even touched "Insane" any type of balance it doesn't do much good to report anything about it. The "Insane" we have now is likely to be completely different from the first beta attempt for that level.

[Mytheos]

I suppose, but considering they haven't even touched "Insane" any type of balance it doesn't do much good to report anything about it. The "Insane" we have now is likely to be completely different from the first beta attempt for that level.

I agree.

But still I have found in my lifetime there are many times when doing something that doesnt initially make much sense leads to some great thoughts and experiences.

If his efforts to play on that difficulty level lead him to really push his limits which during the process of uncovered anything from a bug to an exploit then I'd say its worth it.

Never know, its can always be funny how things work out...hell his brain might just be working better being more challenged or he felt he needed an extra cup of coffee to keep his game face on, and maybe that spark of caffeine leads to a brilliant idea.

/shrug

[Tryphikik]

Mytheos the Peacekeeper . You should let some flames going, you know.

How is that a peacekeeper comment? "If we arent going to pick on the several casuals wanting to Auto the entire game and play it as little as possible, lets not pick on probably the only person on the forum with balls big enough to play a beta build on Insane Ironman."

That's like keeping the peace by kicking someone in the balls and elbow dropping them in the back of the head, implying that all people who want to auto the air combat are casuals who want to auto the entire game. Really, that's not condescending and an attack at all... lol so peaceful.

[Mytheos]

How is that a peacekeeper comment? "If we arent going to pick on the several casuals wanting to Auto the entire game and play it as little as possible, lets not pick on probably the only person on the forum with balls big enough to play a beta build on Insane Ironman."

That's like keeping the peace by kicking someone in the balls and elbow dropping them in the back of the head, implying that all people who want to auto the air combat are casuals who want to auto the entire game. Really, that's not condescending and an attack at all... lol so peaceful.

I think you are assuming too much.

There are comments saying:

Auto Air Combat

Auto Ground Battles

Show UFOs so I can just walk and cap them.

Remove Air Combat or make it impossible to fail

Move Aliens away from the landing zones

Make it so Aliens cant shoot me if I can't see them

And so forth.

My point is there are hardcores and casuals and if you arent going to attack one group, please dont attack the other. Everyone has shown a high level of respect for one another in this community vs the internet average.

Attacking players doesnt serve to aid in the creation of this game, nor provide anything constructive.

If you read anymore into it than that, you are over-analyzing it beyond my intention.

And BTW please dont take casual as an insult, I dont take Hardcore as one, and its just opposite ends of the spectrum.

Sometimes I enjoy casual games too. So when I play solitaire, I play it casually, therefore on the solitaire forums I'd be a casual. And would not be insulted by being referred to as such.

[Tryphikik]

And BTW please dont take casual as an insult, I dont take Hardcore as one, and its just opposite ends of the spectrum.

Sometimes I enjoy casual games too. So when I play solitaire, I play it casually, therefore on the solitaire forums I'd be a casual. And would not be insulted by being refereed to as such.

In this context casual is clearly being used as an insult... and I take it as an insult because i'm not a casual gamer, -especially- when it comes to tactics or strategy games, the word casual in this context is being misapplied -repeatedly- over something that comes down to preference and has nothing to do with being hardcore or casual.

Wanting more this and less this has literally nothing to do with whether you are a casual or hardcore gamer. That is a preference. You can want more of the first and play nothing but insane ironman, play every tactics/strategy game that comes out and be a hardcore gamer. It's insulting to insinuate otherwise so people including me of course take it as an insult, because that is how it is being used.

P.s. Yes the picture of the air combat is bugged, it's my only screenshot that i had to quickly grab... but it is an accurate representation regardless since like 50% of the air combat i play ends up bugged. One more reason why i'll gladly say good riddance to it and embrace having more time with my soldiers and the strategy and squad based tactics that I love and where i want to get my challenge from(i.e. not a minigame). That said I have no problem with those who do get fun out of and enjoy the ac minigame, which is why i'm really glad it is being made moddable to have destruction and fill what those players enjoy so they can spend more time in that part of the game.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Tryphikik

[Mytheos]

In this context casual is clearly being used as an insult... and I take it as an insult because i'm not a casual gamer, -especially- when it comes to tactics or strategy games, the word casual in this context is being misapplied -repeatedly- over something that comes down to preference and has nothing to do with being hardcore or casual.

Wanting more this and less this has literally nothing to do with whether you are a casual or hardcore gamer. That is a preference. You can want more of the first and play nothing but impossible ironman, play every tactics/strategy game that comes out and be a hardcore gamer. It's insulting to insinuate otherwise so people including me of course take it as an insult, because that is how it is being used.

P.s. Yes the picture of the air combat is bugged, it's my only screenshot that i had to quickly grab... but it is an accurate representation regardless since like 50% of the air combat i play ends up bugged. One more reason why i'll gladly say good riddance to it and embrace having more time with my soldiers and the strategy and squad based tactics that I love and where i want to get my challenge from(i.e. not a minigame). That said I have no problem with those who do get fun out of and enjoy the ac minigame, which is why i'm really glad it is being made moddable to have destruction and fill what those players enjoy so they can spend more time in that part of the game.

Could you link me the post of me specifically calling you a casual? I dont remember it.

Yes Air Combat is currently bugged to a degree in 19-3 and slightly in 19-2, there are several posts discussing it.

I think wanting to take Air Combat out of the game because it is "bugged" in an Experimental build or an early access beta build is a bit overzealous.

I'm not sure how to refer to players that want something to be simple enough that it has little to no learning curve.

The internet and gaming standard has for many years been the use of the word casual, used by gamers, reviewers, and developers.

If you have another "word" that you think conveys that thought I mentioned two sentences up, please let me know and I'll try it out, its always good to change things up from time to time.

Edited July 10, 2013 by Mytheos

[Tryphikik]

Could you link me the post of me specifically calling you a casual? I dont remember it.

Yes Air Combat is currently bugged to a degree in 19-3 and slightly in 19-2, there are several posts discussing it.

I think wanting to take Air Combat out of the game because it is "bugged" in an Experimental build or an early access beta build is a bit overzealous.

I'm not sure how to refer to players that want something to be simple enough that it has little to no learning curve.

The internet and gaming standard has for many years been the use of the word casual, used by gamers, reviewers, and developers.

If you have another "word" that you think conveys that thought I mentioned two sentences up, please let me know and I'll try it out, its always good to change things up from time to time.

Screenshot was taken June 7th(I don't even know if 19.2 was out then but I wasn't playing on it) this was back when I was playing on the stable build before I saw the announcement on how to upgrade to experimental builds... It's also a beta so being bugged isn't a huge deal but that is why I said "one more reason" aka that isn't the main or only reason.

The main reason I would rather "auto" the ac is very simple. I play this game as do many others, for strategy and tactics. I love squad based tactics especially from the original xcom, to jagged alliance, to silent storm, to jrpg turn based tactics and so on. In none of those games did I have to play a air combat minigame that was extremely important, well, you can say you did in the original xcom but it was extremely easy and an irrelevant part of the game in my opinion.

Now moving on from that we get to the point where well anything you do that makes the game easier is casual, even if it is reducing one mechanic that you think never should have been very important in the first place. But if you take that mentality you would have to accept and approve of everything a developer does that makes the game more difficult or else you are a casual. So if the developer added a block puzzle game everytime you construct a new facilty and if you fail you lose your building and money, it would be casual to say that is stupid and I want to skip it, because that would make the game easier. You could argue for the realism of construction errors just like you could for the realism of air combat and the list could just go on of things that could be added that interfere with the main reason the player base is playing and what all of us who enjoy this game have in common(a love for turn based tactics and strategy).

Edited July 10, 2013 by Tryphikik

[Mytheos]

@Tryphikik

I have made several posts defending auto Air Combat by the way, so dont assume I am against it, I have even made suggestions on how to do it.

I try to be unbiased, even tho being perfectly unbiased is nearly impossible.

I guess the thought tho is...if you take something in a game and reduce its difficulty it's a Casualization of that feature, system or mechanic.

And I suppose one could say its a casualization of the game, personally I believe it would take more than just one feature to cause that to be a good description tho...

I see where you are coming from with the Block game example, and understand you are making an exaggerated example.

But Air Combat is and I believe has been a part of every XCOM game, and in XCOM94 I would say it was a little trivial, and lacked any real depth...I agree with you on that.

But I think it is no bad thing to improve upon the original or add a nice layer of enjoyable depth to it.

Granted the amount of time I spent "mastering" Air Combat was too long, and the process of doing so was a bit frustrating.

I personally enjoyed the experience and enjoy Air Combat, but I can see that obviously the learning curve is too high and would kill the game for many people.

But I dont think Immortal Interceptors is the best idea, nor do I think Air Combat should be glossed over, I think the Devs have done some good work on it, but it just needs a bit more balance.

Its hard for me to choose, but yeah if the devs put it on the back burner and revisited it after working on the rest of the game more it would probably be best.

However the spiral of death situation with it is what I believe they are trying to solve, which is important, I just feel it could be band-aided better tho

Edited July 10, 2013 by Mytheos

[ThunderGr]

It is interesting that one of the most moderate persons in these forums, aka Mytheos became a target when he posted a perfectly reasonable and neutrally dispositioned text in response to a sharp and offensive post. I guess that if someone wants to be offended, it will be, no matter what.

[Tryphikik]

Granted the amount of time I spent "mastering" Air Combat was too long, and the process of doing so was a bit frustrating.

I personally enjoyed the experience and enjoy Air Combat, but I can see that obviously the learning curve is too high and would kill the game for many people.

I like most of your post as it makes me feel a bit more understood... Which I feel honestly in this thread there is a lot of misunderstanding and throwing around of labels that don't necessarily apply because of that misunderstanding.

As for the above quote, I just wanted to clarify for many of us who don't like the AC, it isn't that mastering it takes too long and is too hard. It's that we just want to brush past it and get back into the tactics and playing with our soldiers and evolving our base/researching, etc. Even when you master it, it still takes time because you shoot down quite a bit of stuff in this game and if you are someone like me who is going to invest a ton of time into a game like Xenonauts, all that ac time will add up to eventually you spending days in AC if you add it all together. Which I personally am not a fan of so that's just my side of it.

[Mytheos]

@Tryphikik

I can understand how for some it can seem like something that is tedious and simply takes away from the experience they primarily enjoy in the game, and I agree ground combat is essentially the largest part and core of the game.

But Air Combat, Base Creation and Management, Theme and Mood, Sense of Loss as well as many other things all rolled together is what made XCOM Legendary for many people.

So I feel it would be a disservice to the fanbase to not give your full respect to any of those aspects of the game, which is a difficult and challenging thing to do...

Its basically like trying to make a single dish everyone loves. Some people pick parts out, or add more salt and pepper and so forth...that is of course why we have mods.

But as a gamer I think we'd enjoy having to use as few as possible, not to mention hope they even get created as we're not all capable of modding ourselves.

So I guess we just all hope its as close to what we want as we can get it, so we're reduced for now to shouting at each other how the soup should taste 8-)

Which is fine, the discussion can and has lead to many brilliant ideas.

[Lightzy]

Refueling times are strange.

My condors go out, fail to catch the bugger, return to base at 50% fuel or something like that.

7 hours of refueling ?!?!

[StellarRat]

Refueling times are strange.

My condors go out, fail to catch the bugger, return to base at 50% fuel or something like that.

7 hours of refueling ?!?!

It's the government and they probably have a union too.

[Viggo]

For what it's worth, please don't neuter the gameplay by making interceptors indestructible.

This is not a console game. If you lose an interceptor it's tough sh1t, people die all the time, more so during alien invasions...

Immersion is key and indestructible interceptors are not adding to it, it's detracting in a big way.

[Warthog]

My opinion.

Since the funding countries already provides a lot of the equipment for the xenonauts base, let them provide the raw materials and components needed for the aircraft.

The costs would be drastically reduced in a plausible way because it would only be the alien materials, manpower and some operational costs.

Well, repairing aircraft need components and raw materials also so why doesn´t it cost the player's money? The funding countries would also provide most of it I guess.

-IMO that would be a reasonable explanation for making the aircraft less expensive therefore less of a hit if the player looses it.

-It would provide incentive to maintaining and expanding manufacturing bases (more importance to the engineers).

-It will explain why can't the player manufacture and sell equipment for profit.

-Besides it will be more in line with other economic aspects of the game already in place (other free weapons and equipment).

In the end of the day you will still need the alien materials and the manufacturing power so it would not cripple balance.

I also think auto resolve is a good idea as an option.

And sorry for my bad english.

[Anon_Spartan]

Is the indestructible corsairs thing due to people being upset they sank a ton of effort into making Corsairs and other advanced craft only to have them destroyed? Maybe that's the problem. In all my time playing the stable beta I never used anything more advanced than a MiG because by the time I would have such facilities ready to produce a corsair, my game would crash or become unplayable somehow. I don't know how things are in the experimental releases but I knew that a $50,000 interceptor was highly expendable and as soon as one was shot down due to carelessness, I would be ordering another. As for upgrading planes, I suspect newer models can move faster or take more damage but they can still have the same weapons so you can get very far with cheap and quick to produce tier 1 aircraft.

And on a side note, it should not take a full workshop of techies a full month to make a corsair. Unless the plane can solo three heavy fighters or something, it is in no way worth that much dedication.

[Mytheos]

Is the indestructible corsairs thing due to people being upset they sank a ton of effort into making Corsairs and other advanced craft only to have them destroyed? Maybe that's the problem. In all my time playing the stable beta I never used anything more advanced than a MiG because by the time I would have such facilities ready to produce a corsair, my game would crash or become unplayable somehow. I don't know how things are in the experimental releases but I knew that a $50,000 interceptor was highly expendable and as soon as one was shot down due to carelessness, I would be ordering another. As for upgrading planes, I suspect newer models can move faster or take more damage but they can still have the same weapons so you can get very far with cheap and quick to produce tier 1 aircraft.

And on a side note, it should not take a full workshop of techies a full month to make a corsair. Unless the plane can solo three heavy fighters or something, it is in no way worth that much dedication.

The quick and skinny is that if you dont have planes, you cant play the game.

Also not having enough can have a similar effect.

So if you dont have planes, you cant get money to buy new ones, you're screwed.

You can wait til the end of the month for Funding Nation $, but if you lost too many planes early it becomes a nearly unrecoverable situation, sure you "could" recover, but the assumption is that if you lost that many to begin with you probably dont have the experience with the system to recover.

So they felt it was too punishing for new players, as it starts a "Spiral of Death".

So they are looking for a way to essentially make sure you always have planes - so you can shoot down UFOs - So you can get money - so you can play the game.

[StellarRat]

So they felt it was too punishing for new players, as it starts a "Spiral of Death".

Maybe they should only be immortal on "EASY". Of course, I'm sure others have suggested the same thing. By the time a newbie is ready for "NORMAL" they ought realize how to do AC and how important your planes are.

[Mytheos]

Yeah I personally feel that is an understood aspect of how the game is played.

You do your best, but will probably fail, so you learn from your mistakes and try again. You get better and better each time, adapting to the game, and eventually you win.

Then you feel a sense of pride and accomplishment.

Which "was" a guiding principle of game design for hundreds/thousands of years.

Doesnt matter if you are talking about Chess, Baseball, or the Olympics...people get a sense of enjoyment from learning, pushing themselves and going beyond what they thought they could.

There has never been a sport that requires you to throw a ball and...and nothing you if can at least drop it, you win. There also has never been a game (other than maybe a joke) that requires to you press a single button and you win.

It doesnt take hours to analyze the reason why.

The more you overcome the greater the sense of accomplishment, and I realize different games have different levels of accomplishment. Sometimes we want something that requires no commitment, no learning curve and is just pure mindless entertainment, thats why movies and TV are popular.

I start to raise an eyebrow though when games try to just be a movie, sure make some games that way, but there should be a line drawn in the sand that says this is a Tactics Game, and if you are looking for easy and mindless or simple, dont cross this line into our territory.

Tactics :

- The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy:

-the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end

-An action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end

Take your pick, but none read easy, simple, quick to learn, or mindless, easily done by everyone on the first try.

In fact it sounds like the complete opposite.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Mytheos

[ThunderGr]

Tactics :

- The military science that deals with securing objectives set by strategy, especially the technique of deploying and directing troops, ships, and aircraft in effective maneuvers against an enemy:

-the art or skill of employing available means to accomplish an end

-An action or strategy carefully planned to achieve a specific end

Take your pick, but none read easy, simple, quick to learn, or mindless, easily done by everyone.

In fact it sounds like the complete opposite.

Perfectly put. This is what people seeking to play strategy games should be looking for.

[StellarRat]

If you lost your fighters in the original game you were screwed too. And there were no 'gimie UFOs to help you at the start, so I'm really not seeing the need for immortal fighters certainly not Migs and Condors anyway.