No mind control or blaster launchers?

[OSUNightfall]

Chris,

I've been following this game for several years, practically since the site went up, and finally made the leap and purchased a premium pre-order, because I finally felt the quality I was seeing was worthy of a pre-purchase. From what I've played, you guys are doing a great job of staying loyal to X-Com while updating it for a more modern time, and for your general fidelity to the original formula I salute you. That said...

I've read that you've decided to remove human psi and blaster launchers from the game for being "unbalanced." I would caution you that in the midst of your re-imagining it is sometimes easy to overlook things that made the original game great, or try to "re-invent the wheel" because you feel you've found a better way. But I am dismayed to hear that you've made this decision in particular. Everyone can agree that blaster launchers and psi were broken, but I think that rather misses the point. This article articulates very well why things like psi and blaster launchers helped make the original great. Alien technology isn't supposed to be balanced, and it isn't supposed to play fair. It is supposed to be overwhelmingly superior to your own options, until you've co-opted them, bit by bit. At the beginning of the game your disadvantage seems insurmountable. As time passes, you get better and better tools, and you begin to realize you're turning the tide. Eventually, you realize you're actually on top, that the aliens are now inferior to you, and at that point you strike the killing blow to Cydonia.

I understand the desire for absolute balance in a rules system. I design rules systems myself as a hobby. But even if you felt that psi and blasters were badly unbalanced, why not simply balance them, rather than remove them from the game entirely? Make PSI require line-of-sight, make it cost a large amount of TUs, make it harm the wielder, whatever you wish. But simply removing these things sounds like a harsh move to make in the name of balance.

Discovering that suddenly humans could also train to use the psi abilities that had been slaughtering my men for months was one of my favorite parts of the original game; it was a game changer. Suddenly you have to build psi-schools, and you find out that all your soldiers have this potential hidden talent that you must now hone. In my opinion, psi abilities, broken or not, were one of the defining characteristics of the UFO experience, a turning point and watershed in the original game, and I'm saddened to hear that it won't be in this most excellent successor. I would ask that you consider carefully before committing to this decision.

To end, I admire you greatly Chris, for the sacrifices you've made in the name of a game we all love very much. I'm sure that either way Xenonauts will turn out to be a good game. You've greatly impressed me so far. I just hope that somewhere in the research tree is something as cool as the old human psi abilities and the blaster launcher, or this just becomes a bland game of "move soldiers around map, shoot things and throw grenades."

Edited January 19, 2012 by OSUNightfall
Edited for clarity.

[Gorlom]

If blaster requires line of sight doesnt that make it a rocketlauncher? How would you motivate it damageing your operative? Requireing 100% of your TU still doesnt limit the blasterlauncher enough to remove the feeling that it is "overpowered"

I think its just as much an immersion issue as it is about beeing overpowered. The idea is that humans cant develope PSI that fast.

I understand where you are comming from but hopefully there wont be anything in the game that makes the endgame feel like more of a chore then a challange.

Edited January 19, 2012 by Gorlom

[OSUNightfall]

Apologies, I meant that PSI might require line of sight. Blasters (or the equivalent) could have several different things done to tone them down if it's felt that they need it. For example: a limit of two or three waypoints, and a reduced blast radius.

What I really liked about options like this is that they opened up new tactics and new ways of playing the missions that you've already been playing half the game. Suddenly you have to think about how to integrate these new technologies into your play, which keeps things fresh about halfway through. If every alien tech is the equivalent of a new gun or grenade, things are going to get stale fast no matter how many new toys you research.

I'm playing through a game of X-Com right now in fact. I know how it hurt when I lost my entire squad to one mind control a few days ago, or when I get hit with a blaster launcher. In my current game, I just lost 13 men and 2.2 million dollars during a base assault in a no manufacture, no-selling game in which I can ill afford that kind of loss. That base is sitting there in Africa, mocking me, and it might as well be made of fire for all the chance I have of taking it. But I know that I *will* take it some day. I know that one day it will fall, and I'll make the aliens pay for every drop of blood I lost there, and that one day I'll be on top, the one mind-controlling units and blaster-launching the aliens. I know that one day they'll be afraid of me. It's that sort of thing that I think makes the game special.

Edited January 19, 2012 by OSUNightfall

[BigityBalzworth]

I'll admit I was disappointed for at least 5 seconds when I head no blaster launchers. but i guess i got over it. You have to admit that an immensly powerful weapon like that is a lot of fun. I'm gonna leave the weapon selections to the game makers, though. I'm just glad this forum is here and that goldhawk is taking people's opinions into accont. X-com meant alot of things to alot of people. We all remember things that made it special to us. While the blaster launcher may be gone, there are alot of new weapons that i am looking forward to using against those alien bastards!

[Gorlom]

To make the blasterlauncher type of weapon feasable i would suggest max 2 way points/LoF turns and all it does is "knockdown", makeing the alien fall down and sapping the AP for the alien untill players next turn. And it only affects one tile per projectile. Projectiles should be bulky and timeconsuming to reload/fire.

That might make for some interesting tactics without giving you godmode once you get your own version.

Alternatives fro Psi could be say "screeching grenades" emmitting some sort of sound able to interfere with aliens normal behaviour. (causing them to panic or berserk or finding the alien "brown note"... one of the oddest myths ive ever heard)

I think there is some thread about alternatives to PSI already? Was it Chris that made that one?

[BigityBalzworth]

I was more surprised when I heard no autocannon!!

[OSUNightfall]

At least one could probably mod the Autocannon back in quite easily, if one were so inclined.

[Jean-Luc]

The machine gun is basically the auto cannon sans incendiary rounds. We got flamethrowers for fiery fun now. And incendiary rockets of course.

[Chris]

Hmmm. The problem I had with blaster launchers was the same as I do with indirect fire weapons. It takes away the fear of having to get up close to the aliens and putting your men at risk, which I think is a problem. The issue is it's impossible to water it down without it becoming just a plain old rocketlauncher with a big bomb in it, which you get by the end of Xenonauts anyway. So that's why I left them out.

The psi was slightly tougher, and it could be made less unbalanced with the LOS requirements. But to me Xenonauts is meant to be a desperate fight against time to complete the final mission before you get overwhelmed, which is how the AI escalation has been designed. There's never a point where the aliens fear you, instead there's just a brief moment of opportunity where you can strike at their heart before the war is lost forever. I figured that was more dramatic.

[OSUNightfall]

Ah, I see. That's a significant shift from the tone and dramatic arc of X-Com, but in the context of that sort of shift, the two things you've mentioned make a lot more sense. I still hope you'll put some things in that mix up your tactical options a bit in the way that these items did. Part of the fun of researching incredibly advanced tech is finding things the aliens can do that we can't, yet, then being able to adapt that tech to the more traditional squad based combat of earth's forces.

One thing I don't understand about the difficulty arc. Do you start out in a desperate situation that only gets worse and harder over time, even though you're advancing in power yourself, or is it a situation of you getting better compared to the aliens over time but never quite surpassing them?

In the first scenario, it could be rather disheartening because it would feel like you're losing ground no matter how well you progress, with the level of your play merely determining how slowly you lose ground. This would feel rather like a slog up a treadmill where you just get farther and farther behind no matter how fast you walk. I'm skeptical that this difficulty curve would make for a compelling game.

In the second scenario, for it to be appropriately dramatic, you would almost need an arc where you start out in a desperate situation, it slowly gets better, then the aliens eventually reveal a big "gotcha", at which point you would again be outclassed, with the level of play determining how desperate the situation gets when the aliens finally "get serious." This would give you your dramatic, losing fight, without making the player feel as though they're just losing ground no matter what in the early game. It seems like if if you did not have a gotcha, even if you never get to the point that the aliens fear you, you would still be able to overwhelm them by sheer logistics and numbers. Is either of these close to the mark?

Also, let me make clear that I in no way regret my pre-order based on this. I'm still trying to get friends to pre-order, and when the game comes out, if the quality is still there, I'll probably buy several copies for friends. A true sequel to X-Com is something we've all dreamed about for a long time, and I want to help that succeed in any way I can. All my observations are aimed toward that goal, positive or negative. Thanks for taking the time to respond.

Edited January 20, 2012 by OSUNightfall

[Chris]

The idea is that you slowly gain power relative to the aliens, but then the tech tree ends when you unlock the final mission and the aliens carry on gaining power so you have to act quickly or lose your edge. The final UFO type is more powerful than anything you have, and it spawns in ever increasing numbers. If you wait too long to gather your forces for the final attack, you'll be overwhelmed.

EDIT - by 'more powerful than anything you have', I don't mean invincible - I just mean it's substantially tougher than anything you have in a straight-up fight. You should have the numbers to deal with them when they first start appearing but then they just keep coming in larger and larger numbers.

[Gorlom]

One thing I don't understand about the difficulty arc. Do you start out in a desperate situation that only gets worse and harder over time, even though you're advancing in power yourself, or is it a situation of you getting better compared to the aliens over time but never quite surpassing them?

What if its a sinus curve instead of an arc? Say that every technological advance puts you at almost level with the aliens and gives you some breathing time, but that they shortly after bring out their reserves. Reservers such as other alien races and even greater alien tech, thereby bumping you back to the previous situation.

[anotherdevil]

so depending on how well you do you will begin to catch up with them more and more, but when you think you've finally caught them, along comes big daddy...

[OSUNightfall]

so depending on how well you do you will begin to catch up with them more and more, but when you think you've finally caught them, along comes big daddy...

Is this correct? If so, I'm willing to provisionally accept that it would address my concerns with the difficulty arc and dramatic arc. My one caveat would be that if this is the way things go, the player should probably receive some notification that they're now in a race against time. Without such a clue, I feel that many players might not realize the clock is truly ticking until it's too late. Perhaps a note from a military advisor or a line from one of the research projects: "Command now believes that it is only a matter of time until the aliens gain total supremacy over Earth. Unless..."

Also, is there a "trigger" for this final alien ramp up, or do you envision it as being solely a factor of time? Each has merits and drawbacks.

Edited January 20, 2012 by OSUNightfall

[OSUNightfall]

What if its a sinus curve instead of an arc? Say that every technological advance puts you at almost level with the aliens and gives you some breathing time, but that they shortly after bring out their reserves. Reservers such as other alien races and even greater alien tech, thereby bumping you back to the previous situation.

While I think this sort of idea isn't entirely without merit, I tend to think that such a progression might leave the player feeling frustrated, because no matter what they do, they only enjoy the fruits of their efforts a short time before the aliens always come back with something better. This is the same problem I have with games like Bethesda's Oblivion, where every enemy in the world always levels with you.

Edit: To be more clear, I don't have a problem with this sort of thing happening in a time-based manner dependent on difficulty level, but if you simply make it so that the aliens advance whenever you advance, as a player I get annoyed because I feel like the game is simply rigged to keep up with me no matter how high the level of my play.

Edited January 20, 2012 by OSUNightfall

[Sathra]

From what Chris has said, doing better does slow down the alien's invasion escalation. They gain points from flying ships around and causing Events, and completing missions. The points they gain unlock the next stage/s of the invasion. If you shoot down their ships, they can't gain those points as fast.

[Beagle]

I was never a fan of using Blaster Bombs or Psi. I felt they were too easy for one, and too inhuman for my tastes. It's the same reason I've generally used a lot of laser and prefer the Skyranger/Interceptor to all other aircraft - I like to play human.

[Chris]

The alien ships are unlocked when their ticker reaches a certain score, which is gained by their ships completing missions etc and possibly just over time. If you do a good job, you'll keep their ticker relatively low. If you do a bad job the invasion will start to cascade out of contol and overwhelm you quickly. There's no 'rubber-banding' to artificially speed up the invasion if you're doing well.

The only thing stopping you from totally dominating the aliens if you're a really good player is that you're reliant on the new UFOs spawning toget your hands on new tech, so you'll never have end game tech much before the final UFOs start appearing. You just want to make sure you have enough time to research everything and build enough bases to keep ahead of the curve.

[Moonshine Fox]

That last post was an excellent explanation and I totally agree with you. That's a very interesting way of making the game progress, rather than making it largely time-based as the old X-Com games were. Actually basing alien progression on them having to finish missions kinda puts it in the same boat as UFO: The Two Sides (the now cancelled multiplayer remake of XCOM) where the aliens had to finish missions and avoid XCom in order to progress.

Of course, it was in alpha so it was hideously imbalanced, but it was fun nontheless

[plucx]

OSUnightfall, that is exactly how i feel.

One thing I loved with X-com was to be able to drag the fight, training my mens and keeping the alien influence as low as I could using everything I got. Blaster launchers did help get these long battle from dragging for too long. Industry kept you from bankrupcy in case US or another big funder was out. Even made you able to make interception or listening bases around earth. I worry a little about the new changes.

Edited January 30, 2012 by plucx

[TheTuninator]

I won't miss Blaster Launchers as long as there is a dumb-fire human rocket which can knock holes in UFO hulls, as that's all I really use them for.

As far as human psionics, I honestly think that they are the worst-designed part of X-COM. My experience with the game is admittedly limited, but I have noted a significant drop in my enjoyment of the game following large-scale implementation of human psionics. As a player new to X-COM, perhaps I can provide a perspective different from those of the series vets.

At first, it was great fun to MC alien after alien and make them kill each other or toss all their weapons away; there's no denying that. However, after a couple of missions, it started to feel more like a pointless grind than anything else. I'd go into a mission, two rookies and a tank would march out of the Skyranger to spot aliens, and as soon as I found the first it'd be time to spam MC abilities from the safety of the Skyranger until the cows came home.

Thanks to psionics, all of the tension of the game had been removed. I no longer had to worry about whether or not my elite troops might not come home from a mission, because they'd be tucked snugly away in the Skyranger while disposable Rookie Redshirt scouted around for the aliens, and who cares if he doesn't come back alive? Missions went from a harrowing experience where every wrong door selection or poorly chosen corner turn might cost me Colonel Rambo McBadass, beloved five-month veteran, to an absolute cakewalk, and all of the tension and pseudo-horror which X-COM fosters so well vanished completely.

I won't miss psionics one bit, personally, but that's just my take on things.

The only way I think they could possibly be balanced in order to avoid destroying game atmosphere would be to implement both a requirement for direct LoS from the Xenonaut to the target as well as a hard-capped range limit. Your troops should always be in danger in Xenonauts, and X-COM-style psionics run completely contrary to that principle.

Edited January 30, 2012 by TheTuninator

[plucx]

I only used psyonics as a defensive mesure. They really removed the tactical part of the game but still, if you don't like it don't use it.

[TheTuninator]

I only used psyonics as a defensive mesure. They really removed the tactical part of the game but still, if you don't like it don't use it.

Well, I would argue that they should be removed entirely or massively overhauled, as they represent a poor game mechanic. The "if you don't like it, don't use it" argument can be applied to anything, but it shouldn't serve as a defense for poorly designed or implemented features.

Psionics can probably work as an interesting and balanced game mechanic, but not in the manner in which X-COM presented them.

[plucx]

The only pro I see for psyonics is, as the blaster laucher goes, it make the game way faster in lter stage. Well, I loved the sheer destruction the blaster brought around too. Blowing stuff is aways cool. And anyway, late game you seldom needed two of those to clear a room. Nothing to salvage there. If you hit a crabmen, no luck! They were almost imprevious to explosives.

I would contend easily with a direct fire rocket with nuclear result!

I don't really care about psyonics but it is a great panic tool. Your team could get in such trouble with these. You had to know your guys, spread them in separate zones.

The don't like it don't use it argument is valid when such "badly" designed items are in a game. When I see them and don't like them I ignore them. Some other player might disagree and they are right too. Blaster launchers and psyonics are both trademark items that are absent from any other games genre. It's a signature.

Edited January 30, 2012 by plucx

[TheTuninator]

Blaster launchers and psyonics are both trademark items that are absent from any other games genre. It's a signature.

Psionics aren't really unique; they're just "mind control" powers, which plenty of games have.

In any case, I don't disagree that I'm free to ignore psionics if I don't want to use them. However, this approach carries several issues with it.

The first is that the game should be balanced with psionics in mind; as such, if I willingly deprive myself of such a powerful tool, I will be at an extreme disadvantage moving forward in the game, as I am denying myself one of the most potent weapons in my arsenal.

The second is, again, that this doesn't excuse poor design. What if I like the concept of psionics, but I want them in a fashion which makes them actually fair and retains the game atmosphere?

To use an well-known example, the Chinese Stealth Suit from Fallout 3 was heinously overpowered in terms of its stealth bonus; players could crouch undetected literally in the middle of whole groups of enemies and pick them off one by one. Now, you can just say "if you don't like it, don't use it", sure. However, that doesn't address the problem for people who want a stealth-enhancing armor, but want one that's actually balanced so as not to ruin their game completely. There's no middle ground, and so people who want a fun but fair playing experience lose out.

Same things goes with psionics. I'd love to have them if they were actually balanced, so I could actually make use of them without harming my enjoyment of the game. As such, I don't think it's simply a matter of "if you don't like it, don't use it" because I would like to use it; I just want to use it in a form which doesn't ruin the game.