Interceptor immortality, what a great idea!

[RawCode]

exp3 feature immortal xenonauts on easy and normal...

actually this is very good thing for sandbox game, since you allowed to try different thing without restarting from the start each time you did something wrong.

[Lightzy]

This is of course incorrect.

Soldiers cost next to nothing and even a complete rookie can, with proper tactics and equipment, take out an advanced alien soldier.

The equipment of course, doesn't get lost when the previous soldier dies.

A plane however, costs a lot to build, takes a ton of time, you lose the weapons you equipped it with, and takes up all of your manufacturing capacity for the duration of creation. And needless to say, you cannot take out more advanced enemies with the cheap starting planes no matter how well you 'tactic' a group of alien heavy fighters or an alien craft with two escorts (unless you keep 2-3 flights squads of 3 which are all completely expendable)

So the argument of 'soldier immortality' is of course completely baseless. do go on

[TrashMan]

Wut?

Don't you loose armor and weapons whenyouget desintegrated by aliens?

[ThunderGr]

This is of course incorrect.

Soldiers cost next to nothing and even a complete rookie can, with proper tactics and equipment, take out an advanced alien soldier.

The equipment of course, doesn't get lost when the previous soldier dies.

A plane however, costs a lot to build, takes a ton of time, you lose the weapons you equipped it with, and takes up all of your manufacturing capacity for the duration of creation. And needless to say, you cannot take out more advanced enemies with the cheap starting planes no matter how well you 'tactic' a group of alien heavy fighters or an alien craft with two escorts (unless you keep 2-3 flights squads of 3 which are all completely expendable)

So the argument of 'soldier immortality' is of course completely baseless. do go on

I fail to follow the arguments. Aircraft cost more, take greater care of them. Having the game tweak them unrealistically is just like the developers think we are incompetent. As for the soldiers, they develop. Each experienced soldier dying is xx hours in development lost. Rookies against more advanced aliens? Hell, you have to be screwed and if you are not, the game is a crap. That simple.

[Dranak]

I'm pretty sure a corsair can only take max 2 shots from a bomber and Corvette in v19.2, Migs are dead meat on the 1st hit

Migs outrange and outspeed both those UFOs, so they should never take fire, much less damage from them. Migs can straight up drop their speed and joust a bomber to kill it.

[Mytheos]

Would it be better if they were screaming like little girls in bear traps?

"I'm so happy I'm a Gummy Bear, Gummy Bears!"

*Click*

AWHHAHH)@*() Mother **(&)@(*#@($*@()*@(*#@

For those confused...

[Mytheos]

exp3 feature immortal xenonauts on easy and normal...

actually this is very good thing for sandbox game, since you allowed to try different thing without restarting from the start each time you did something wrong.

You dont think autosaves and Save / Load covers this?

[smoitessier]

Migs outrange and outspeed both those UFOs, so they should never take fire, much less damage from them. Migs can straight up drop their speed and joust a bomber to kill it.

The only way a mig will survive a bomber atm (v19.2) is if the mig is accompanied by another AC and preoccupying the bomber. on a 1 on 1 both bomber and Mig will die like two scorpions with a stinger in it's head. It's impossible to turn fast enough after firing your payload to avoid the bomber's shot, since they have the same range.

[Gauddlike]

An aircraft costs a lot of cash because the game has it set that way.

They take a long time to build because the game has them set up to take a long time.

Their weapons are destroyed because the game destroys them.

The early craft are useless against late game UFO's only if the game is balanced to make that the case.

None of those things are impossible to change so cannot be used as irrefutable proof that aircraft have to be indestructible.

If the cost and production time are too high then reduce them.

If the weapons being destroyed when the aircraft is destroyed puts too much of a strain on finances make those weapons cheaper.

All of the individual elements can be balanced by a simple adjustment to xml files.

None of those values are final and they will still need to be balanced, even with the new system in place.

[Dranak]

The only way a mig will survive a bomber atm (v19.2) is if the mig is accompanied by another AC and preoccupying the bomber. on a 1 on 1 both bomber and Mig will die like two scorpions with a stinger in it's head. It's impossible to turn fast enough after firing your payload to avoid the bomber's shot, since they have the same range.

Pretty funny that you're telling me what I'm doing every fight is impossible... You don't disengage, you slightly outrange it and kill it. Drop speed to minimum, engage and kill it. The bomber will never fire. I know with plasma weapons you one shot a bomber, I can't remember offhand if elenium does or if it requires a second Mig. Same for cruisers, 6 plasma torpedos launched head on will kill a cruiser.

[smoitessier]

Pretty funny that you're telling me what I'm doing every fight is impossible... You don't disengage, you slightly outrange it and kill it. Drop speed to minimum, engage and kill it. The bomber will never fire. I know with plasma weapons you one shot a bomber, I can't remember offhand if elenium does or if it requires a second Mig. Same for cruisers, 6 plasma torpedos launched head on will kill a cruiser.

Ha your right! I stand corrected. I hit pause and slowed the mig down, he destroyed the bomber with alenium torps a split second before it got into range.

[Lightzy]

An aircraft costs a lot of cash because the game has it set that way.

They take a long time to build because the game has them set up to take a long time.

Their weapons are destroyed because the game destroys them.

The early craft are useless against late game UFO's only if the game is balanced to make that the case.

None of those things are impossible to change so cannot be used as irrefutable proof that aircraft have to be indestructible.

If the cost and production time are too high then reduce them.

If the weapons being destroyed when the aircraft is destroyed puts too much of a strain on finances make those weapons cheaper.

All of the individual elements can be balanced by a simple adjustment to xml files.

None of those values are final and they will still need to be balanced, even with the new system in place.

Now this is an argument, not the babylike cries I've seen. At least you go "well, why accept the box as it is?" which is a rarity! though still refering to airplanes as 'indestructible' is still a bit infantile in my opinion but whatever. They're not indestructible, they're simply faster and able to escape, as the game shows, and are solid enough to withstand multiple alien plasma blasts, so they're DEFINITELY going to survive a mere crash landing.

(Funnily, when the same people were talking about the probability of alien craft being completely destroyed, they put up this same argument which now they find unacceptable themselves. That a craft which can take several hits by incredibly advanced weaponry will have no problem with crash landing into a city intact)

The argument however is incomplete.

I have of course considered all of these options before suggesting auto-disengaging planes (an idea that was slightly botched by making them 'recoverable').

Reduced prices and production times lead to plane spamming (there are many answers to this as well, like making hangars double in size requirement, or airplanes very costly to maintain, but those lead to rotten gameplay, as it is highly unintuitive for a player who would see something cheap and get a lot of it and be hit by a crippling bill at the end of a month. We tend psychologically to look at the here'n'now in games and in life as well)

Considering that a condor fighter price is roughly equal to basic soldier armor prices, I believe that reducing prices and times any more would be quite ridiculous as well.

Reduced weapon costs make them a no-brainer to create (now too, you can't really get by in the game without improving weapons).

etc.

In short, these types of arguments show that the core issue behind the fix has not been fully understood.

The main part of the problem is that air-combat is the only way to lose a game, because you can lose as many soldiers as you like and keep going, but losing a couple of planes means you're out of money and out of action until you replace them.

This is of course a big fault in design which needed adressing, and now it has.

However, the second part is that this isn't meant to be airfleet simulator, it was never the focus of the game. You're not supposed to have your entire economic game and base building game centered around aircraft, and air combat shouldn't be the make-or-break part of the game. You're not supposed to build a base full of hangars while everything is a compromise (I go for 2 living spaces, 3 workshops, and all the rest hangars, and then another base full of hangars)

To get a valid picture you need to compare this to the original.

There you never lost a plane. You could automatically disengage when too damaged even with the starting planes, and once you got to higher tier planes and weapons, you simply always won, but perhaps sometimes got slightly damaged.

Brilliant way to focus on the meat of the game.

Edited July 8, 2013 by Lightzy

[DNK]

I've said all I have to say here:

1. Allow fuel/speed/AB management in the geoscape to allow Xeno craft to outrun or catch up to alien craft.
   
2. Allow Xeno craft to 'ditch stores' for increased fuel efficiency and speed.
   
3. Rebalance aircraft abilities, including a much reduced roll distance for all craft (but especially aliens').
   
4. Greatly increase mission rewards.
   
5. Allow for resource-limited profitable production.
   
6. Increase nation funding.
   
7. Reduce ease of losing nations to aliens.
   
8. Allow off-base landings (similar to "patrol", but you are invisible to enemies and get refueled - simulates friendly airfields you can land at throughout the world).
   

http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/6286-Balancing-Campaign-Difficulty-without-Magic-Interceptors

[Gordon]

I don't agree with anything you say, Lightzy. You are only rambling now to protect your messy immortal interceptor idea.

There have been some good suggestions put out there. On "insane" I do think that the air combat should have a major impact on the game. Your losses should hurt and affect your finances. I put my vote on;

1) Make interceptors cheaper/faster to produce.

2) Reward for when one shoots down alien fighters, direct or via funding from the country that it is shot down over.

[Gauddlike]

To get a valid picture you need to compare this to the original.

There you never lost a plane. You could automatically disengage when too damaged even with the starting planes, and once you got to higher tier planes and weapons, you simply always won, but perhaps sometimes got slightly damaged.

Brilliant way to focus on the meat of the game.

You still had to decide to retreat or you lost the craft and had to replace it.

The player was in control rather than the aircraft being indestructible (which they are, they cannot be destroyed).

You suggest that the OG balance was well done and could be duplicated easily by adjusting weapon and aircraft stats but that is not what the indestructible interceptors do.

They are a safety net not a balance.

Adjusting the weapon damage and ranges to make your fighters able to kill the enemy quicker and die slower would improve chances of surviving.

Increased armour strength would have the same effect.

They make the actual air combat more forgiving as a mistake is not always fatal and you have a chance to recover during the fight.

Making the interceptors indestructible does not affect the actual air combat, only what happens when the balance fails.

I agree that the air combat should not have a huge impact on the ground combat but there are many other balance mechanisms that could be used before resorting to such an extreme change.

Now that the change has been made though I don't see any real reason to change back.

Just run with it and make the new system work as well as possible.

No point in wasting dev time and resources covering old ground.

Hopefully it will be possible to adjust the xml files to allow destructible aircraft to be added back as I have seen a few modders who I reckon would be interested in the challenge of balancing that.

I've said all I have to say here:

1. Allow fuel/speed/AB management in the geoscape to allow Xeno craft to outrun or catch up to alien craft.

2. Allow Xeno craft to 'ditch stores' for increased fuel efficiency and speed.

3. Rebalance aircraft abilities, including a much reduced roll distance for all craft (but especially aliens').

4. Greatly increase mission rewards.

5. Allow for resource-limited profitable production.

6. Increase nation funding.

7. Reduce ease of losing nations to aliens.

8. Allow off-base landings (similar to "patrol", but you are invisible to enemies and get refueled - simulates friendly airfields you can land at throughout the world).

http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/showthread.php/6286-Balancing-Campaign-Difficulty-without-Magic-Interceptors

Sadly that list doesn't really address the reason the change was made.

The impact of losing an aircraft was having too much influence on how well you could do in ground combat.

If you lost a squadron (say three Marauders) and I didn't then I could have $1.2 million, 600 engineer days, and 120 alenium that you would not have access to.

That would allow me to start a whole new base or equip a squad with a significant amount of the best gear available and so on.

The devs felt this was too much of an advantage and threw game balance off too far.

An enemy that was a challenge for a fully equipped squad would likely decimate the poorly equipped player.

If it was a challenge for the poorly equipped player then the well equipped one would find it easy.

That would not be linked to their skill in ground combat but the air combat loss.

Personally I feel that the difference was definitely too large but could have been overcome by adjustments to aircraft costs and so on however the devs felt that the air combat was taking focus away from the ground combat.

It is more of a design decision than a balance one.

[Mytheos]

Not Having Planes = Loss of...(Takes a deep breath)

Initial $$

Initial Time

Production Time

Potential Research Materials

Potentially More Efficient Use of Research Time

Potential Money due to NOT being able to shoot n loot X number of UFOs

Potential Funding Nation Points and Monthly Funding

Potential Soldier Equipment which leads to Potential Loss of Soldiers

And I am sure I missed a few.

Some of the "Potentials" could = 0$ to 300,000$

So yeah thats why this is so hard to figure out and balance.

Cheaper Planes/Reduced Production costs are values that impact a multitude of other variables whose values can range from "No big deal" to "Holy God!, might as well just start a new game / save load"

And it is especially tricky because some of those values arent seen/felt for a month...making it harder to understand what is exactly causing your failure. (If you dont know why you fail you cant adapt)

[RavenX]

The way I see it having some fighters survive can be easily explainable, while others shouldn't survive at all. I don't mind fighters being basically indestructible, but only certain types/kinds.

Early Starting Interceptors = Should Be a Total Loss when destroyed/shot down

Interceptors Made From Alien Materials = Should Not Be a Total Loss when destroyed/shot down

Why? Well, think of the UFO's you're shooting down. All of them except for the smallest ones can survive impact when being shot down. Even some small ones that only carry 3 Aliens can survive being shot down, thanks to the toughness of Alien Metals. Why shouldn't our mid/late game interceptors be capable of the same thing if they're made out of the same materials?

So, normal human made fighters made with conventional materials should be a total loss when shot down, while those made with more durable alien materials should be salvageable after being shot down and not be a complete loss. Meaning given enough time you can repair it while not having to manufacture a new one (which is expensive and time consuming) from scratch.

That seems like a nice middle ground on all this to me.

Edited July 8, 2013 by RavenX

[StellarRat]

The way I see it having some fighters survive can be easily explainable, while others shouldn't survive at all. I don't mind fighters being basically indestructible, but only certain types/kinds.

Early Starting Interceptors = Should Be a Total Loss when destroyed/shot down

Interceptors Made From Alien Materials = Should Not Be a Total Loss when destroyed/shot down

Why? Well, think of the UFO's you're shooting down. All of them except for the smallest ones can survive impact when being shot down. Even some small ones that only carry 3 Aliens can survive being shot down, thanks to the toughness of Alien Metals. Why shouldn't our mid/late game interceptors be capable of the same thing if they're made out of the same materials?

So, normal human made fighters made with conventional materials should be a total loss when shot down, while those made with more durable alien materials should be salvageable after being shot down and not be a complete loss. Meaning given enough time you can repair it while not having to manufacture a new one (which is expensive and time consuming) from scratch.

That seems like a nice middle ground on all this to me.

I think this is a great compromise and proposed the exact same thing in another thread.

[DNK]

Sadly that list doesn't really address the reason the change was made.

The impact of losing an aircraft was having too much influence on how well you could do in ground combat.

If you lost a squadron (say three Marauders) and I didn't then I could have $1.2 million, 600 engineer days, and 120 alenium that you would not have access to.

That would allow me to start a whole new base or equip a squad with a significant amount of the best gear available and so on.

The devs felt this was too much of an advantage and threw game balance off too far.

One of the big issues, like I said, was the economy was way too tough compared to XCOM. If missions paid out a similar amount, you wouldn't have to worry nearly so much. They've made the campaign far harder (and as battle AI comes into the game properly, it's going to get much worse) both in terms of economy and in terms of certain difficulty factors (losing territories, alien bases, night missions, and ofc air combat). Neutering the air combat is one way about it, but there are others:

1. Increasing the income stream (mission rewards and regional funding).

2. Improving night visibility and flares (also helps a lot for alien bases). Adding dusk/dawn lighting.

3. Decreasing transport plane costs (makes the midgame a lot easier since you can't really afford them currently, also makes alien bases possible to attack).

4. Reducing the ease of losing territories and/or making them recoverable.

5. Rebalancing the air combat and adding my suggested features.

[StellarRat]

One of the big issues, like I said, was the economy was way too tough compared to XCOM. If missions paid out a similar amount, you wouldn't have to worry nearly so much. They've made the campaign far harder (and as battle AI comes into the game properly, it's going to get much worse) both in terms of economy and in terms of certain difficulty factors (losing territories, alien bases, night missions, and ofc air combat). Neutering the air combat is one way about it, but there are others:

1. Increasing the income stream (mission rewards and regional funding).

2. Improving night visibility and flares (also helps a lot for alien bases). Adding dusk/dawn lighting.

3. Decreasing transport plane costs (makes the midgame a lot easier since you can't really afford them currently, also makes alien bases possible to attack).

4. Reducing the ease of losing territories and/or making them recoverable.

5. Rebalancing the air combat and adding my suggested features.

All valid and appropriate possibilities. Although the second and third won't really help much with this problem.

[DNK]

The interceptor issue is, imo, one symptom of the larger issue of campaign difficulty. The thread that the post links to has it in full.

[Newfr]

In my opinion immortal interceptor is a bad thing overall. For guys who want this game to be as hardcore as possible that is a major thing. For the rest of us since Dune 2 and Hand of Death there is a magical trick: save and load, load, load... till everything goes your way. So basically that interceptor is immortal anyway but in different way for everyone who wants it to be so. Of course if they are not lazy and don't forget to save before every major thing.

[Gauddlike]

I did read that thread but it still missed the main point that Chris was addressing with this change.

The problem wasn't the cost of the aircraft in relation to your funding.

The actual problem was how the loss of the aircraft impacted so negatively on ground combat and how reducing the cost (financial and production time) of a whole high tech aircraft down far enough so that losing it didn't mean you were unable to compete ON THE GROUND meant they were comparable in price to a single rifle which he felt was completely wrong.

The balance of the campaign was felt to be extremely difficult to get right when one player would have millions of dollars more than another simply because they didn't lose in the air combat.

You could make the air combat perfectly balanced so a player with the appropriate skill level for the difficulty level they have chosen would have the perfect amount of challenge.

Eventually though they may make a mistake at which point they suddenly become far less able to compete on the perfectly balanced ground combat due to lack of equipment.

You could also increase the amount of income the player has or make it more sustainable as DNK suggested but that would make little difference to the issue.

At some point one player will be unlucky and lose an aircraft which sets them back in air combat and on the ground.

Lack of the equipment that the game is balanced for them having then means the disadvantage would continue to increase.

If they then lost another aircraft because of this imbalance they would spiral further down.

Don't get me wrong the suggestion made by DNK would likely help with the balance of the economy but that balance is not the reason the indestructible interceptors were introduced.

They were changed so that losing one would still allow the player to continue using their cash and production facilities to keep their ground troops up to scratch.

The penalty of time spent repairing has much less of an impact on the ground combat than forcing the player to stop building their new armour and guns to spend that production time, cash, and materials on a new interceptor.

Interceptors Made From Alien Materials = Should Not Be a Total Loss when destroyed/shot down

I suggested a while back that the alien alloy airframe of an advanced interceptor could be recovered and used as a component in constructing a new aircraft much more cheaply than making one from scratch.

It isn't really much different than the current indestructible interceptors system on the surface but I prefer it as it is more hands on and ties in with the current system of recovering alien alloys from crashed vehicles.

[Person012345]

Interceptor immortality, what a great idea!

Here is another; that the Xenonauts don't die, but go to sleep. Then, after a nappy change and some hot coco, their momma can give them a kiss and they can go outside to play with the aliens again.

Here is another; why don't you drop Goldhawk, and change your name to 3K games?

This is the first speed bump for me, and its a large one, a deal breaker in fact.

I though this was going to be a hard game with hard decisions. Interceptor immortality, not only makes it way too easy, but is an direct insult. Seems like the developers are starting to cater to the people who prefer a "streamlined" game.

And no, I don't want to manually decommission a downed plane in order so simulate how the game should work.

If this is an option or not implemented for "insane" then fine. If recovery happens a few times on "insane" fine.

If not, It's GAME OVER for me. How's that for a rant/terrifying ultimatum?

I lol'd so hard at your post.

I actually completely agree. The entire notion of not being punished (in-game) for being bad at the game (or being rewarded for being good at it) is ludicrous imo.

Edited July 9, 2013 by Person012345

[TrashMan]

The actual problem was how the loss of the aircraft impacted so negatively on ground combat and how reducing the cost (financial and production time) of a whole high tech aircraft down far enough so that losing it didn't mean you were unable to compete ON THE GROUND meant they were comparable in price to a single rifle which he felt was completely wrong.

And that problem dates back to the first X-Com.

Seen the prices of soldeir in interceptors in X-Com2012?

Logicly speaking, if you're dealing with high-tech expensive aircraft and soldiers, the soldeirs are going to be a drop in the bucket.

You should basicly have a limitless, endless supply of soldiers. You should be starting with elite, high-stats soldeirs. Air battle SHOULD be redicolously important.

There are quite a few things that *SHOULD* be different if we're taking things from a realistic point of view...assuming the premise of course.

If the XCOM/Xenonauts is a run-down organization practicly no one belives in and is getting table scraps, then the situation becomes more believable.

Either way, having to balance two things that are in VASTLY different price ranges is a problem with the core of the game.

No way around it really. I don't see how you can get "realistic" prices.