Immortal Interceptors, Will this Work?

[Mytheos]

Problem : New Players are are experiencing too punishing a game caused by loss of Air Craft.

Problem : People dont like Air Combat Hard.

Problem : People dont like Air Combat Easy/Trivial.

Problem : People dont like Air Combat at all.

I am interested in your thoughts, maybe I am simply missing something....but why wont this work?

Make Auto-Resolve Simple.

A system that says...

Plane A + UFO A = High Success

Plane A + UFO B = Moderate Success

Plane A + UFO C = Low Success

Plane A + UFO D = Failure

By Success I mean how many planes survive and how much damage they took.

Keep it simple and dont base it too much on AI vs AI or let the Random Number Generator change the result too greatly to be a perfect win or a perfect failure based on a dice roll...it's based on how many planes you sent, which types they were, and how they were armed. (And just a little +/- variance so it doesnt feel completely static)

Other than that, keep 19-2's Interceptor system, where lost planes = destroyed.

(Granted the Air Combat system isnt perfect in 19-2 and needs some tuning and balance)

So would this result in...

Problem : New Players are are experiencing too punishing a game caused by loss of Air Craft.

Solved : I dont loose Air Craft now because I use Auto Resolve and it's like XCOM94 and XCOM2012, simple and sweet. If I want to later I can learn to do it without Auto Resolve.

Problem : People dont like Air Combat Hard.

Solved : Now its much simpler and quicker to understand, and I dont have to learn a complex mini-game to be successful.

Problem : People dont like Air Combat Easy/Trivial.

Solved : I dont use Auto Resolve, unless I just get bored of doing it manually.

Problem : People dont like Air Combat at all.

Solved : Good now I can just click Auto Resolve, and I can practically bypass the whole Mini-Game.

I think I am only missing, "I like Air Combat and want it to be easy and not use Auto Resolve."

Which Might be best suited to having a check box when creating a new game that says "Click here to enable Basic Air Combat".

So who am I missing or would this suit at least 80-90% of everyone?

(I know this wont cover, I want to beat Air Combat and upon doing so, have a Hot Girl/Guy show up at my door and give me a hug...but lets keep expectations reasonable.)

[ThunderGr]

The auto resolve will be simple, as stated by Aaron and will be based on a mathematic formula.

Your solution becomes problematic as soon you reach:

I think I am only missing, "I like Air Combat and want it to be easy and not use Auto Resolve."

Which Might be best suited to having a check box when creating a new game that says "Click here to enable Basic Air Combat".

That checkbox is not so easy to implement the functionality for and requires the developers to create 2 different balancing flavors of the Air-Combat and the economy system...I would like a perfect universe as much as the next guy(well, maybe not but, whatever) but, unfortunately(or fortunately, take your pick), we do not live in one .

EDIT: Besides, everyone wants their own way to make it to the final release of the game because "this is how it should be for the game to be the best"...Go figure eh?

Edited July 11, 2013 by ThunderGr

[Mytheos]

@ThunderGr

True but I left - I think I am only missing, "I like Air Combat and want it to be easy and not use Auto Resolve."

To the side because I had the feeling that the main 4 points would suit 80% of players perhaps?

And like you said the one I left to the side was because it would require more dev time/money.

This is also why I was trying to set up a Poll instead of this thread, lol...but I failed

If 85% of people are ok with this, then I say drop immortal interceptors and move on...you cant please 100% of people, and the idea is to get as close as you can...and depending on the results we might find find this to be reasonable for the vast majority, or we might see some bizarre result of 90% of people want Air Combat Easy and doesnt like Auto Resolve.

Either way it could give some insight to this lengthy debate.

[Mytheos]

Depending on the thoughts on this I might update it some and turn it into a Poll.

[ThunderGr]

Since the auto-resolve will be based on a mathematical formula and not on a tactical simulation, how do you think the developers would be able to make it rewarding to not use auto-resolve without making it necessary to not use auto-resolve?

It is a very difficult issue. You want to make both viable and, in doing so, you have to water-down the tactical resolution. I am in favor of removing the auto-resolve in higher difficulties and have the system with the destructible aircraft in said difficulties, with the air-combat, of course, improved so that we would not be able to use a standard, boring procedure each time, but will have to use different tactics according to what is going on at the specific battle. The AI changing combat tactics at will, would go a long way towards that end.

[shabowie]

Hate the idea of auto resolve, there just needs better tutorials to help new players learn to play the air to air game. Also general balance to make it not luck based whether or not you have the almost required alenium weapons in month two when the escorted mediums start showing up.

I also think there should be emergency parachute payments from loyal governments after a major defeat in the air or on the ground. These would be carefully balanced based on difficulty and would be designed to help recuperate from a serious disaster, or allow the xenonauts to go into the red up to a certain amount, to what extent again based on difficulty.

[thothkins]

I also think there should be emergency parachute payments from loyal governments after a major defeat in the air or on the ground.

Isn't getting a parachute payment needlessly cruel by the government who know you've just had pilots killed in their aircraft?

[Mytheos]

@shabowie

Well Auto Combat is there to use it if you want, me personally I would just never use.

But I dont find it tedious, and I enjoy it. But many people dont share that feeling.

And yes its simple enough if you could watch a "How to" video on youtube, video would only take 10-15mins to watch.

But again I am just trying to understand why a change like Immortal Interceptors even needs to be added when SO many people are against it, and the ones that are for it, well most of them anyways could be equally pleased by just using Auto Resolve.

It seems that would end up with the largest majority of players happy.

And who knows by being able to play the game (Auto Resolve) they might over time grow to appreciate a more in depth and challenging Air Combat should they choose to try it out.

Edited July 11, 2013 by Mytheos

[shabowie]

But again I am just trying to understand why a change like Immortal Interceptors even needs to be added when SO many people are against it, and the ones that are for it, well most of them anyways could be equally pleased by just using Auto Resolve.

Well I guess my point is some other method of making losing aircraft not so crippling other than immortal interceptors or auto resolve needs to be made. I brought up the idea of emergency payments from supportive governments after a disaster, or the ability to go into debt. Maybe both together would work. I hate both immortal interceptors and auto resolve. Auto resolve is almost like removing the air to air aspect of the game.

Are immortal interceptors here to stay? I was under impression it was a general stop gap measure to make up for poor geoscape and escalation speed balance. If the idea is for immortal interceptors to remain, where can I voice my displeasure?

Edited July 12, 2013 by shabowie

[shabowie]

Isn't getting a parachute payment needlessly cruel by the government who know you've just had pilots killed in their aircraft?

I thought somebody might like that pun. What do you think of the idea vs immortal interceptors?

[RawCode]

immortal interceptors disable "lost aircraft == game over" condition, week recover time still harmfull

[Mytheos]

I thought somebody might like that pun. What do you think of the idea vs immortal interceptors?

Well Foreign forces can shoot down UFOs and they request you to come clean up afterwards for them from time to time.

Increasing that chance of happening based on how many Air Craft you have recently lost seems logical (If you arent shooting them down, other countries are going to try/have an opportunity)

That would allow you to just get a free mission so you could do it, get money and buy a new plane.

I would personally like that better than free money. Make people work for it! 8-)

[Chris]

Just to comment on the original idea (haven't read the whole thread) - I think the issue is that if you're just using a mathematical formula for the autoresolve, which we are (it's very similar to what you suggest there), you may still get freak results.

It's quite difficult to model the effects of three Foxtrots with heavy missiles fighting three alien interceptors with the same system that you use to model Condors fighting, say, a Corvette with two escorts - as some weapons are good against certain craft but pretty useless against others and both sides can use mixed squadrons.

Therefore there probably will be unpredictable results from some situations, and with the losing side being destroyed (rather than temporarily out of action) it has the possibility of being an incredibly expensive auto-resolve error. And people remember that sort of thing....even if the system works well 50 times in a row, they'll remember that one time it went wrong and wiped out a squadron that should logically have won the battle.

[thothkins]

I thought somebody might like that pun. What do you think of the idea vs immortal interceptors?

thank you for putting it in there

The funding nations are looking for Xenonauts to take care of the invasion. If the Xenonauts get thumped in air combat, then there are some likely reactions. It should be said though, that the Geoscape doesn't really have much depth one way or the other.:-

1) If Xenonauts can't do the job, we should rely on our own forces and reduce funding. If the mission is over a funding nation, then this is what should be reflected in the game as you'd lose points for failing to take out the interception.

2) Xenonauts is in trouble. Our local forces won't be any better. We should fund Xenonauts more. Particularly useful once technology had advanced. This option supports the player far more. It could be default, through a resource allocation function or an influence/ ultimatum one.

If the idea is for immortal interceptors to remain, where can I voice my displeasure?

Pick one there seem to be several concurrent threads all about the same functions at the moment.

[Mytheos]

Just to comment on the original idea (haven't read the whole thread) - I think the issue is that if you're just using a mathematical formula for the autoresolve, which we are (it's very similar to what you suggest there), you may still get freak results.

It's quite difficult to model the effects of three Foxtrots with heavy missiles fighting three alien interceptors with the same system that you use to model Condors fighting, say, a Corvette with two escorts - as some weapons are good against certain craft but pretty useless against others and both sides can use mixed squadrons.

Therefore there probably will be unpredictable results from some situations, and with the losing side being destroyed (rather than temporarily out of action) it has the possibility of being an incredibly expensive auto-resolve error. And people remember that sort of thing....even if the system works well 50 times in a row, they'll remember that one time it went wrong and wiped out a squadron that should logically have won the battle.

3 Condors vs Corvette /w 2 Escorts.

Basic:

Condor-1 vs Fighter = Condor win, 40-60% Life

Condor-2 vs Fighter = Condor win, 40-60% Life

Condor-3 vs Corvette = Condor Destroyed.

If you do it manually, You can split off the fighters and use whatever Condor the Corvette is locked on to "kite" the corvette.

However you are still generally down to being left with 1 Condor-1 that is fully loaded, but has no ability to attack, since the corvette wont change targets.

So you have whatever is left over on the other two Condors, which is generally going to be some Ammo in their guns.

They can sneak behind the Corvette and then dump their ammo on it, and then all 3 can disengage safely.

So you end up with 2 damaged condors and 1 undamaged condor.

Condor-1 50-80% Life

Condor-2 100% Life

Condor 3- 50-80% Life

Corvette = (Well depends on weapons, but damaged.)

So the question is, do you want to reward Auto Resolve with the possibility of "Best Performance"?

Or do you want to just stick it with basic?

I would put forth you can NOT reward Auto Resolve with the best possible outcome of a manual result.

So if someone wants to win a hard fight, they will simply have to take the loss, or they will have to do it themselves.

Auto Resolve = I know I will win, I am just getting bored of doing it.

Auto Resolve does NOT = I am going to use it and save/load until I get the result I want, and you end up rolling dice.

So if it gives the same results to a tighter degree, people wont bother with a save/load (As they will learn it doesnt change much)

Now the only big factor that is going to change most Air Battles is your Air Craft Weapon being lost on Condors/Corsairs. (Which is weird you left it in the game when you are trying to combat New Player and Early Game Death Spiral with Immortal Interceptors but leave in a 5%ish chance to Auto Loose with starting craft)

So that random chance would I guess still be there and the only thing that would change expected results.

If you REALLY want, you can always have take the "basic result", and the "Advanced Manual" result and choose which one to use before you run the formula.

75% Basic Result, 25% Advanced Result.

In either case it isnt critical as complex or difficult fights should require the player to do it themselves, or suffer mediocre results.

Auto Resolve is for people that dont care and will just learn what they need to win and do it, AND for people that know they will win but are getting bored of doing it.

So I disagree with an Auto Resolve that has the possibility of giving a Best Possible Manual Result.

So is the main problem you are running into is should we keep this to basic results, or try to add in advanced results?

Edited July 13, 2013 by Mytheos

[Mytheos]

Its just otherwise match up the best plane on the best ship and run it like nothing else was there except 3 fighters vs 2 condors.

Then separate and match up. Get results of 2 on 2. (Condors win with X% life.) and then Add 2 damaged condors vs 1 Fighter.

Which = Condor A = Moderate Damage, Condor B = Heavy Damage/Possible Loss. Formula Damage = 95%+/96%+ = lost.

[Mytheos]

Whats really left?

Condor, Corsair, Foxtrot vs Corvette w/ 2 escorts?

Calculate:

Condor vs Fighter = Success (Lowest)

Corsair vs Fighter = Success (Middle)

Foxtrot vs Fighter = Success (Highest)

Condor vs Corvette = Fail

Corsair vs Corvette = Fail

Foxtrot vs Corvette = Foxtrot = Minor Damage/No Damage and Corvette = (Damaged based on Missile Type)

Result Matchup:

Condor vs Fighter 1

Corsair vs Fighter 2

Foxtrot vs Corvette

Sum Result:

Corsair = X% Life

Condor = X% Life

Foxtrot = x% Life

Fighter 1 = Destroyed

Fighter 2 = Destroyed

Corvette = Damaged

[Mytheos]

Chris - "even if the system works well 50 times in a row, they'll remember that one time it went wrong and wiped out a squadron that should logically have won the battle."

Thats a 98% rate of expected result. Not sure to what degree you are exaggerating in that statement, but thats higher than the expected result doing it manually due to potential weapons destroyed.

And 3 Condors vs 3 Fighters DOES have the result of All Condors survive or All Condors lost, if you get crazy unlucky and have all your planes suffer a weapons destroyed.

Really thats the main source of a vastly varied result.

So if someone sees that result, it would exist if they did it manually anyways, so having it exist in an Auto Resolve outcome is...expected.

But really you'd be doing yourself a favor all around by removing the ability for weapons to be lost anyways, or at least on lower difficulty levels. (I feel you dislike any change like this on a by difficulty basis, but /shrug thats your call of course)