Self-Destructing Weaponry

[Surrealistik]

I'm surprised to see how one of the main things that the X-Com remake got right is not included in Xenonauts, particularly since the latter seems to be bigger on realism and hard science than the remake: namely weaponry that self-destructs when its operator dies (and that conversely remains intact when its operator is stunned).

Besides the obvious narrative sense of scuttling weaponry (i.e. don't want those damned dirty apes using our own weapons against us in combat, and we certainly don't want them to be reverse engineered!), this would also nicely address the gameplay 'issue' of soldiers EZ moding tactical combats by retrieving and utilizing alien weaponry instead of applying an aim penalty as was proposed for newer versions.

Edited November 30, 2013 by Surrealistik

[Xitax]

Self destructing weapons IMHO not realistic at all, whereas not being able to properly use alien weapons is.

[Surrealistik]

Why aren't they realistic exactly, particularly with advanced alien technology? Hell, we have the tech to do it even now, in addition to biometric security measures on firearms.

There is no good reason for the aliens _not_ to implement such scuttling technologies with their weapons; doubly so when you consider the game is basically won off the back of reverse engineering.

[StK]

I actually don't find it such a big deal. If I retrieve parts or full weapons my guys cant use properly.

If it was "realistic" for aliens to device such a method. Yes or no who can actually say.. maybe the need never came up so far so it was never thought of in their society.

[Gorlom]

I found that mechanic to be rather annoying while playing XCOM2012. Also it's quite stupid to have such volitile saftey measures. Who would realistically want to carry an armed explosive that goes off if something malfuntions with the user identifier?

Your example link seems to still be in the concept stages? and only about allowing a user to fire the weapon while preventing unauthorized users, it says nothing about destroying the weapon. (To me it sounds as if you've read too much sciencefiction or comic books)

I would say that the main reason aliens don't bother to protect their tech is overconfidence. They can not imagine that Humans can reverse engineer anything in any reasonable timeframe.

this would also nicely address the gameplay 'issue' of soldiers EZ moding tactical combats by retrieving and utilizing alien weaponry instead of applying an aim penalty as was proposed for newer versions.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Allowing the xenonauts to pick up alien weapons in combat is a solution to the issue born from not getting to bring any extra ammo on the floor in the transport. In Xenonauts you can technically run out of ammo, being allowed to use the alien firearms with an aiming penalty as a last resort solves that problem nicely.

If you think that is still overpowered then it is a balance issue and you can allways play around with the numbers.

[Surrealistik]

I found that mechanic to be rather annoying while playing XCOM2012. Also it's quite stupid to have such volitile saftey measures. Who would realistically want to carry an armed explosive that goes off if something malfuntions with the user identifier?

Your example link seems to still be in the concept stages? and only about allowing a user to fire the weapon while preventing unauthorized users, it says nothing about destroying the weapon. (To me it sounds as if you've read too much sciencefiction or comic books)

I was talking about two distinct concepts.

One is the weapon's actual self-destruction; stable microexplosives, nanites, alienium battery and/or circuit overloads with a reliable, death activated trigger could all plausibly achieve this without posing significant collateral or accidental danger. We're not talking about a bottle of nitroglycerine slapped on to the side of a rifle.

The second is biometric security measures that yes, prevent unauthorized firing; that is not to imply that we have yet developed and implemented self-destruct mechanisms or that this is what the wiki page I linked details, but to demonstrate that:

A: We have the capacity for such technology in the present and/or near future, including derivatives that would result in death actuated self-destruction of a weapon.

B: At a bare minimum restricting weapon use to cleared operators is plausible, achievable, realistic and desirable, and is seeing actual implementation in modern militaries/law enforcement agencies today due to its obvious advantages.

In no way does this imply reading 'too much science fiction or comic books' as you've so derisively stated. I also find it at least a little cognitively dissonant that you can criticize the relative plausibility of self-scuttling guns on one hand while simultaneously and uncritically accepting the plentiful soft-scifi in this game on another (but that said, I like that it does try to justify its science, and does incorporate hard science a lot more than the vast majority of similar games).

I would say that the main reason aliens don't bother to protect their tech is overconfidence. They can not imagine that Humans can reverse engineer anything in any reasonable timeframe.

This would be unbelievably stupid of them (not merely prideful/condescending, _stupid_), and even if it were true, after seeing evidence of reverse engineering, something that will come to their attention rather quickly, this stance should change at once.

I'm not sure what you are talking about here. Allowing the xenonauts to pick up alien weapons in combat is a solution to the issue born from not getting to bring any extra ammo on the floor in the transport. In Xenonauts you can technically run out of ammo, being allowed to use the alien firearms with an aiming penalty as a last resort solves that problem nicely.

If you think that is still overpowered then it is a balance issue and you can allways play around with the numbers.

It's simple. In V19, that humans could use field salvaged alien weapons against the aliens to great effect was presumably considered to be a gameplay issue, hence the kludge of imposing an accuracy penalty in V20. I propose solving this perceived issue with self-destructing weaponry (or alternately personalized/operator locked weaponry at a minimum) instead, which has the added advantage of adding to the game's realism and believability.

Tech destruction on death also works from a gameplay perspective on the basis of risk/reward, making captures and the increased risks undertaken to achieve them all the more rewarding.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Surrealistik

[Gorlom]

In no way does this imply reading 'too much science fiction or comic books' as you've so derisively stated.

You're right, I take that back I was probably projecting what I've done onto you. my bad. I retract my statement.

(Although I do not agree that "gun scutteling" or whatever you might want to call it seems plausable. Plus to me it seems like a hinderance to the gameplay.)

I also find it at least a little cognitively dissonant that you can criticize the relative plausibility of self-scuttling guns on one hand while simultaneously and uncritically accepting the plentiful soft-scifi in this game on another.

Oh the reason for that is simple. I don't find this game to be trying to be realistic, nor do I advocate verisimilitude. Gameplay all the way baby! (note my signature ^^)

It's simple. In V19, that humans could use field salvage alien weapons and use them against the aliens to great effect was presumably considered to be a gameplay issue, hence the kludge of imposing an accuracy penalty in V20. I propose solving this perceived issue with self-destructing weaponry (or alternately personalized/operator locked weaponry at a minimum) instead, which has the added advantage of adding to the game's realism and believability.

The penalty has been a part of using alien weapons since I started playing in Version 8. If it was not included in version 19 then it was most likely the result of a bug or an oversight/mistake.

I'm fairly sure the xenopedia is supposed to be saying something about difficulties to handeling the alien weapons hinting at the aiming penalty.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Gorlom

[StK]

@Gorlom: really.. that was included to have a solution for not bringing enough ammo?

I find that kinda weird, because if the player didn't bring enough most probably it's his fault and likely forseeable. Then he needs to dust off and bring more ammo next time (trade some of the space he reserved for grenades, c4 and medkits for more ammo, fill the slots of some guy up even if he looses some time units... )

But then again maybe its the right descision that way because it doesnt interfere with the ground assault tactics of the player...

Edited December 1, 2013 by StK

[Surrealistik]

(Although I do not agree that "gun scutteling" or whatever you might want to call it seems plausable. Plus to me it seems like a hinderance to the gameplay.)

Why isn't it plausible for advanced alien technology that has an ultra-advanced understanding of genetic manipulation, nanomaterials and plasma physics more than a century ahead of our own to create self-scuttling smart guns when firearm integrated biometric controls are already attainable?

Oh the reason for that is simple. I don't find this game to be trying to be realistic, nor do I advocate verisimilitude. Gameplay all the way baby! (note my signature ^^)

From a gameplay perspective, I personally like the tradeoff of risk / reward. Take the risk of capturing alien, be rewarded with the interrogation + gear.

The penalty has been a part of using alien weapons since I started playing in Version 8. If it was not included in version 19 then it was most likely the result of a bug or an oversight/mistake.

I'm fairly sure the xenopedia is supposed to be saying something about difficulties to handeling the alien weapons hinting at the aiming penalty.

Oh I get the reasoning, but if we need to find a way to make field looted alien weapons less potent, mine works pretty well.

[Gorlom]

@Gorlom: really.. that was included to have a solution for not bringing enough ammo?

Not sure. I assumed it was part of the reason. Haven't seen official word on it though.

Why isn't it plausible for advanced alien technology that has an ultra-advanced understanding of genetic manipulation, nanomaterials and plasma physics more than a century ahead of our own to create self-scuttling smart guns when firearm integrated biometric controls are already attainable?

Because it only makes sense in hindsight. It's not a precaution an invading alien race would not do unless they expect to be defeated... in which case they wouldn't invade. At least not by leading with small scouts and what not. And changing this mechanic in the game after the player starts to reverse engineering stuff would possibly be plausible but by then it would just be confusing and silly to the player and horrible gameplay design.

Oh I get the reasoning, but if we need to find a way to make field looted alien weapons less potent, mine works pretty well.

I don't think your solution acomplishes what the dev wants though. It is a pretty severe change to break the intended mechanic completley and there are far easier ways to make field looting "less potent". Like tweaking the numbers.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Gorlom

[ventuswings]

The bigger issue would be that changing Xenopedia entries will be daunting with this change. Personally, I'm not bothered by it, especially since

STORY SPOILER

it's not even a war, just the experiment where alien can kill the Earth any time they desire.

[Surrealistik]

Because it only makes sense in hindsight. It's not a precaution an invading alien race would not do unless they expect to be defeated... in which case they wouldn't invade. At least not by leading with small scouts and what not. And changing this mechanic in the game after the player starts to reverse engineering stuff would possibly be plausible but by then it would just be confusing and silly to the player and horrible gameplay design.

But you have it exactly backwards; even if they don't expect to be defeated, it only makes sense to take that precaution in order to minimize casualties and impediment from the natives in the conduct of their activities. The only way not using such scuttling technology would begin to make sense is if human adoption of alien technology is specifically intended and integral to the plot per ventuswing's spoiler (and if so, that's fine); anything less is unbelievable hubris to the point of outright stupidity, a complete and utter failure in risk/damage control and assessment. Seeing as the invasion is lead by an advanced and presumably vastly more intelligent species, this strikes me as being incredibly unlikely.

Further, in the unlikely event such an intelligent species did note Xenonaut reverse engineering, guarding against it would be about necessitated, not 'possibly plausible' because not even moronic arrogance remains as an excuse then. I do agree that there is a gamist argument to not changing things part way into the game, but that's in part why I think it's preferable to be consistent and start out with the self-destruct mechanic.

I don't think your solution acomplishes what the dev wants though. It is a pretty severe change to break the intended mechanic completley and there are far easier ways to make field looting "less potent". Like tweaking the numbers.

So the devs specifically want to make field looting less powerful while retaining it as a viable option? Great, because that's exactly what my solution permits since you can stun some aliens and take their stuff. You get rewarded for taking the extra risk (and really, it's not that hard between smoke crawling, ballistic shields, stun batons and flashbangs) with extra reward (powerful alien weapons that don't have an aim penalty).

[Gorlom]

But you have it exactly backwards; even if they don't expect to be defeated, it only makes sense to take that precaution in order to minimize casualties and impediment from the natives in the conduct of their activities. The only way not using such scuttling technology would begin to make sense is if human adoption of alien technology is specifically intended and integral to the plot per ventuswing's spoiler (and if so, that's fine); anything less is unbelievable hubris to the point of outright stupidity, a complete and utter failure in risk/damage control and assessment. Seeing as the invasion is lead by an advanced and presumably vastly more intelligent species, this strikes me as being incredibly unlikely.

Further, in the unlikely event such an intelligent species did note Xenonaut reverse engineering, guarding against it would be about necessitated, not 'possibly plausible' because not even moronic arrogance remains as an excuse then. I do agree that there is a gamist argument to not changing things part way into the game, but that's in part why I think it's preferable to be consistent and start out with the self-destruct mechanic.

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I do not find it plausable, I find it contrived and plain bad storytelling..

Socially it sends the message to the soldiers that they are expendable (which, while true due to cloning of the Ceasians, still shouldnt be so bluntly shoved down their throats or it will affect moral.) and is quite frankly a waste of resources.

It is also completley illogical that they have a system in place which destroys the weapons upon dteath, but does not acctually prevent humans from using the weapons if they capture one?

So the devs specifically want to make field looting less powerful while retaining it as a viable option? Great, because that's exactly what my solution permits since you can stun some aliens and take their stuff. You get rewarded for taking the extra risk (and really, it's not that hard between smoke crawling, ballistic shields, stun batons and flashbangs) with extra reward (powerful alien weapons that don't have an aim penalty).

You seem to be advocating a reduction in availability to compensate a desired buff to the weapons? So it's not technically the destruction of the weapons you want but the removal of the aiming penalty?

I don't see how reducing the availability makes the act of field looting "less powerful", if anything it makes it "more powerful". If you do what you say it's more desirable to have the enemy weapons which will

1) make players more annoyed that they don't get to keep the weapons

2) make the reasons for not allowing you to keep the alien weapons make slightly less sense, further increasing the player annoyance

3) make the priority tactics to stun an alien to loot his weapon effectivly forcing a certain playstyle. Which is BAD in an X-com like game.

4) make it difficult/less available/more annoying to pick up the backup... what is supposed to be backup weapons when the Xenonaut runs out of ammo.

[Surrealistik]

I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I do not find it plausable, I find it contrived and plain bad storytelling..

Socially it sends the message to the soldiers that they are expendable (which, while true due to cloning of the Ceasians, still shouldnt be so bluntly shoved down their throats or it will affect moral.) and is quite frankly a waste of resources.

You have yet to justify why it is implausible. Are the Ceasians disposable? Sure. Is human interference with their operations desirable? Definitely not. Are the Xenonauts a nuisance the aliens wish to destroy, negate or otherwise marginalize? Absolutely. The aliens clearly do not want their activities resisted or impeded. This is why taking such steps to prevent or at least impede reverse engineering is definitely a reasonable idea and makes all the sense in the world, and is worth the surely small modicum of resources those efforts would entail given the alien tech level; plasma equipped Xenonauts clad in heavy armour are an unwelcome pain in the arst if not a legitimate threat.

It is also completley illogical that they have a system in place which destroys the weapons upon dteath, but does not acctually prevent humans from using the weapons if they capture one?

See, you've got me wrong; I'm actually down with biometric imprinting too which locks out unauthorized users for the sake of versimilitude/believably and consistency, but I figure this violates the balance between realism and gameplay. In otherwords, you want to reward taking the added risk of stunning an alien by allowing the humans to use the weapons looted from one.

You seem to be advocating a reduction in availability to compensate a desired buff to the weapons? So it's not technically the destruction of the weapons you want but the removal of the aiming penalty?

I don't see how reducing the availability makes the act of field looting "less powerful", if anything it makes it "more powerful". If you do what you say it's more desirable to have the enemy weapons which will

1) make players more annoyed that they don't get to keep the weapons

2) make the reasons for not allowing you to keep the alien weapons make slightly less sense, further increasing the player annoyance

3) make the priority tactics to stun an alien to loot his weapon effectivly forcing a certain playstyle. Which is BAD in an X-com like game.

4) make it difficult/less available/more annoying to pick up the backup... what is supposed to be backup weapons when the Xenonaut runs out of ammo.

#1: Some players may be annoyed that they don't get to keep the weapons for killing aliens just like some players are annoyed by psionics or friendly fire. They are things that will appeal to some and not appeal to others; in your case they don't appeal.

#2: Actually, as repeatedly stated and demonstrated, the existence of such self-destruction mechanisms make vastly more sense than their absence. You have yet to forward an argument to the contrary that is logical in a narrative sense.

#3: Emphasized stunning is by no means a 'forced playstyle', it is a playstyle with tradeoffs; advantages and disadvantages. That is entirely the point. Killing the aliens outright is much easier, faster and safer but affords less loot, and denies usage of alien weaponry. In practice, most players will opt for the former most of the time unless their financial situation dictates otherwise, or they have a specific need to capture alien tech.

#4: I have yet to come close to running out of ammo, and in the unlikely event that seems to be a pending issue, you obviously attempt to stun _before_ you run dry. Foresight doesn't become less important in tactical combat.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Surrealistik

[Gorlom]

You have yet to justify why it is implausible. Are the Ceasians disposable? Sure. Is human interference with their operations desirable? Definitely not. Are the Xenonauts a nuisance the aliens wish to destroy, negate or otherwise marginalize? Absolutely. The aliens clearly do not want their activities resisted or impeded. This is why taking such steps to prevent or at least impede reverse engineering is definitely a reasonable idea and makes all the sense in the world, and is worth the surely small modicum of resources those efforts would entail given the alien tech level; plasma equipped Xenonauts clad in heavy armour are an unwelcome pain in the arst if not a legitimate threat.

I have explained that I do not find that level of almost prophetic foresight plausable. Because you already know the course of events that precaution is something you have come up with in hindsight imo. You do not agree with my point of view, and we will ahve to accept that we do not agree. I will never be able to "justify" it to you in the same way that you will not be able to convince me unless you rewrite the whole story and gamemechanic untill the game becomes a sorry mess that is essentially unplayable.

It's all up to the developer anyway regardless of what my opinion may be. So my opinion carries no weight.

But if you want to continue the discussion:

To accept the premise that system is needed and do not hinder normal course of operations when you are arrogant enough to send noncombatants and slowly escalating tech progressive UFOs and enemies. You have explained that you consider it too stupid to not have the system, the aliens has already shown that and an even greater level of stupid arrogance imo.

See, you've got me wrong; I'm actually down with biometric imprinting too which locks out unauthorized users for the sake of versimilitude/believably and consistency, but I figure this violates the balance between realism and gameplay. In otherwords, you want to reward taking the added risk of stunning an alien by allowing the humans to use the weapons looted from one.

I think it is kind of pointless if you are for it but conceed that it would be bad for the gameplay. If the argument is that it doesn't make sense that it has one but not the other saying that you are for the other part that cannot be included as well does not invalidate the argument.

I'm having a bit of trouble expressing myself here but... your stance really doesnt make the halfassed implemention make sense.

#1: Some players may be annoyed that they don't get to keep the weapons for killing aliens just like some players are annoyed by psionics or friendly fire. They are things that will appeal to some and not appeal to others; in your case they don't appeal.

There are already a few that complains about this every now and then. It would be poor design to not convey to the player that they are meant to be used in an emergency and not as a preference. I'm merrely trying to consider this from a designers point of view. Personally I don't care if I get to keep them or not since I know the lore.

#2: Actually, as repeatedly stated and demonstrated, the existence of such self-destruction mechanisms make vastly more sense than their absence. You have yet to forward an argument to the contrary that is logical in a narrative sense.

I think you read my second point too fast or something. It's closer to the first point than you seem to reflect in your response.

#3: Emphasized stunning is by no means a 'forced playstyle', it is a playstyle with tradeoffs; advantages and disadvantages. That is entirely the point. Killing the aliens outright is much easier, faster and safer but affords less loot, and denies usage of alien weaponry. In practice, most players will opt for the former most of the time unless their financial situation dictates otherwise, or they have a specific need to capture alien tech.

It is more restrictive than the current system, and as long as the alien weapons are better than the player weapons it would essentially be the optimal strategy. The tradeoff "advantage and disadvantage" is rather unbalanced allways makeing the stunning the better gameplay choice.

(It would aslo screw up the money and resource balance requiring a new solution to that)

#4: I have yet to come close to running out of ammo, and in the unlikely event that seems to be a pending issue, you obviously attempt to stun _before_ you run dry. Foresight doesn't become less important in tactical combat.

That was not the essential part of the argument. Are you stunning every alien? What if the alien you stunned is over half the map away and you have to backtrack to get to it... with 4-5 aliens less then a turn away.

Edited December 1, 2013 by Gorlom

[Surrealistik]

I have explained that I do not find that level of almost prophetic foresight plausable. Because you already know the course of events that precaution is something you have come up with in hindsight imo. You do not agree with my point of view, and we will ahve to accept that we do not agree. I will never be able to "justify" it to you in the same way that you will not be able to convince me unless you rewrite the whole story and gamemechanic untill the game becomes a sorry mess that is essentially unplayable.

It's all up to the developer anyway regardless of what my opinion may be. So my opinion carries no weight.

I'm sorry but this is simply ridiculous. How is it in any way prophetic foresight for an advanced, presumably intelligent alien species to safeguard against reverse engineering? You do realize that modern armies have been and continue to be trained to destroy and scuttle classified technology and weaponry to prevent them from falling into foreign/enemy hands and being reverse engineered right?

But if you want to continue the discussion:

To accept the premise that system is needed and do not hinder normal course of operations when you are arrogant enough to send noncombatants and slowly escalating tech progressive UFOs and enemies. You have explained that you consider it too stupid to not have the system, the aliens has already shown that and an even greater level of stupid arrogance imo.

The problem with this argument (i.e. aliens are already acting incredibly stupid in one respect, so why not another?) is that the illogical progression is basically required for the gameplay, whereas an absence of self-destructing weaponry is not required. Stupidity should only be mandated where it benefits the gameplay.

I think it is kind of pointless if you are for it but conceed that it would be bad for the gameplay. If the argument is that it doesn't make sense that it has one but not the other saying that you are for the other part that cannot be included as well does not invalidate the argument.

I'm having a bit of trouble expressing myself here but... your stance really doesnt make the halfassed implemention make sense.

It makes sense in the same way the whole alien invasion makes sense; a necessary lapse in logic for the sake of gameplay. Self-destruction on death works to enhance gameplay IMO while simultaneously improving verisimilitude because it adds a risk/reward tradeoff. A biometric lock that prevents usage even on a successful stun improves verisimilitude but at the indisputable cost of gameplay.

There are already a few that complains about this every now and then. It would be poor design to not convey to the player that they are meant to be used in an emergency and not as a preference. I'm merrely trying to consider this from a designers point of view. Personally I don't care if I get to keep them or not since I know the lore.

Yes, there are complaints about those elements, but in balance, they make for a better game; likewise for self-destructing weaponry IMO. Second, I have seen nothing per the developers that yet suggests alien weapons are meant to be used only on an emergency basis. Even if it were true though, the trouble involved in retrieving and using them with my suggestions clearly highlights that such looted weapons are hardly a first priority.

I think you read my second point too fast or something. It's closer to the first point than you seem to reflect in your response.

So basically, you think the aim penalty justifies (or at least partly justifies) the unjustifiable (i.e. being forced to sell looted alien weapons?), and removing that penalty somehow removes the solitary thing that prevents players from getting rabid over not being able to keep alien weapons? If so, that's pretty silly as arguments go.

It is more restrictive than the current system, and as long as the alien weapons are better than the player weapons it would essentially be the optimal strategy. The tradeoff "advantage and disadvantage" is rather unbalanced allways makeing the stunning the better gameplay choice.

(It would aslo screw up the money and resource balance requiring a new solution to that)

#1: The alien weapons aren't always better than the player weapons, even at low tech levels.

#2: Stunning your way to a full complement of alien weapons for your squad every mission isn't always viable and is rarely going to be the optimal strategy in practice, especially during large fire fights. The counterbalancing risk is real; losing troops just isn't worth an increment in fire power most of the time.

That was not the essential part of the argument. Are you stunning every alien? What if the alien you stunned is over half the map away and you have to backtrack to get to it... with 4-5 aliens less then a turn away.

Actually it pretty well is. You shouldn't find yourself in that tenuous situation to start where you have just enough ammo to drop an alien and steal its weapon to finish off the others (assuming weapons didn't self-destruct); the moment you start to flirt with ammo depletion (which is again very unlikely as things stand), you should begin to make contingencies to stun an alien and take his weapons/ammo. Again, foresight is important.

I have to admit, giving the increasingly stretching, desperate quality of some of these criticisms, you seem to be less concerned about the quality of the idea and more concerned about being 'right'.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Surrealistik

[StK]

I have to admit, giving the increasingly stretching, desperate quality of some of these criticisms, you seem to be less concerned about the quality of the idea and more concerned about being 'right'.

This applies to you as well. You think its more plausible for the aliens to have self-destructalbe weapons, he thinks it isn't. Well its a fictional scenario. If there has been no need for the aliens to equip their weapons with this functionality there is a good chance they didn't develop it. That you think thats unlikely, doesn't mean that it didn't happen like this in this world. Or there could be religios reasons for them not to disable their weapons, or scientific ones that the power core they use in their weapons is not easily disabled. Or another techno babble why it wouldnt be possible with the weapons the aliens use.

This is just a matter of oppinion not of plausibility.

There is suspension of disbelief needed for both arguments and for me its equally big.

Edited December 2, 2013 by StK

[Gorlom]

I have to admit, giving the increasingly stretching, desperate quality of some of these criticisms, you seem to be less concerned about the quality of the idea and more concerned about being 'right'.

I don't know what you mean by that... I merely don't like the idea. It is to me unappealing (as in it doesnt make sense to me) lorewise and horrible and annoying gameplay wise. I've stated that pretty early and have accepted that we will be disagreeing about this issue. From that I have moved on to discussing the points we each bring forth.

We disagree on very fundamental premises. I'm surprised that isn't clear by now. I'm also surprised that I did not manage to convey that I thought there is no "right" in this discussion until the developer comes in and decides upon what is right.

I'll try one last time: You consider the aliens destroying their own tech (in an automatic system upon death) to be a very intelligent move. I assume you consider this to be selfevident.

I consider it to be ridiculously stupid, and am unable to convey this to you because you seem to consider the opposite to be so selfevident that it simply can't be possible to have any other view.

I'm not trying to win any discussion. I'm just trying to say I have an oposite position regarding your idea.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Gorlom

[Chris]

TL;DR the whole thread. The idea is interesting but the tech tree isn't really balanced around the self-destructing equipment model. Also if we did that, there'd be no penalty for just killing all the aliens with explosives instead of using normal weapons (explosives destroy the equipment so you can't sell it).

There's nothing wrong with the idea, but I don't think there's anything wrong with the existing system either. So in situations like that I'm content enough to do what takes less development time and is consistent with the original game.

[Gorlom]

Guess there is no right or wrong at all

[Brochacho]

Lore-wise, equipping soldiers with weapons that cease to operate if and when a piece of equipment totally unrelated to the operation of the weapon malfunctions does not make much sense at all.

Edited December 2, 2013 by Brochacho

[Surrealistik]

I'll try one last time: You consider the aliens destroying their own tech (in an automatic system upon death) to be a very intelligent move. I assume you consider this to be selfevident.

I consider it to be ridiculously stupid, and am unable to convey this to you because you seem to consider the opposite to be so selfevident that it simply can't be possible to have any other view.

I'm not trying to win any discussion. I'm just trying to say I have an oposite position regarding your idea.

...

No.

I consider your position ridiculously stupid because standard military protocol that is _currently implemented_ already provides for the self-destruction of classified technology! Real life example: the Hainan Island incident; here the crew was explicitly instructed in the event of emergency to destroy classified technology and sensitive items to thwart Chinese reverse engineering of data and sophisticated electronics. If our armies _already_ feature such procedures, why on earth would the aliens not adopt similar policies when the potential repercussions posed by reverse engineering is that much greater in their case, and they presumably have the intelligence to realize this?

It just doesn't add up; your position doesn't make sense. It's not attributable to personal opinion so much as how modern armed forces function in real life. To preempt you, no, the aliens aren't real life combatants, but they should be expected to demonstrate at least as much sense as our militaries.

@ STK:

Lol. Show me one (1) grasping argument of mine; just one, please. Best of luck.

@ Brochacho:

...so your argument then is that biometric imprinting on weapons for instance, something currently in the process of implementation on a wide scale in many military and law enforcement agencies across the world, doesn't make sense despite their collective opinion, assessment and studies? Smart gun technology is extremely reliable; alien variants of the tech likely more so.

Anyways, the argument is futile since the balance will apparently not be changed to accommodate this mechanic.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Surrealistik

[Brochacho]

@ Brochacho:

...so your argument then is that biometric imprinting on weapons for instance, something currently in the process of implementation on a wide scale in many militaries...across the world,

[Citation Needed]

If you can't figure out why a military strategist might object to weapons that stop functioning due to malfunctioning components that have nothing to do with a weapon's actual ability to operate then I'm not sure what to say. There's a reason the Mars rovers don't run on Windows 8 and an Intel i7.

I'd imagine military helicopters and planes and such are scuttled because their designs are significantly more valuable to the enemy than a basic assault rifle, and they aren't scuttled via onboard self-destruct systems. One change I'd actually agree with is the aliens actively trying to destroy their downed craft before the Xenonauts can secure them.

Biometric imprinting makes plenty of sense for law enforcement agencies, though, and I don't see anything particularly odd about that. But alien invaders aren't law enforcement.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Brochacho

[Surrealistik]

[Citation Needed]

Citation provided (as it was earlier in the thread):

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personalized_gun

BIOMAC specifically mentions developing technology for military purposes with a goal of 99.99% reliability or better, and 0.5 second recognition speed or less. Existing advanced (non-magnetic) designs have ~90%

German legislation will require that _all_ guns manufactured within German borders will implement smart gun technology the moment that such technology is viable. No military exemption was provided.

It's a fledgling technology to be sure, but it is in demand and it is on its way. No deployment of the technology will not be universal (chiefly due to cost), but it does make all the sense in the world for certain forces, especially occupation and peacekeeping forces that double as impromptu police enforcement.

Now fast forward that technology a 100 years or so with designers far more intelligent than we are; yeah, somehow I don't think reliability concerns are an issue. Effectively you have a system that is all benefit, no downside. The aliens aren't law enforcement but they certainly don't want reverse engineering of their plasma technology from small arms that are themselves orders of magnitude more advanced than any of our 1970s-80s weapon systems.

Lastly, I cited the Hainan Island incident because it is an example of technology denying protocols in action. The gulf between US and Chinese technology is considerably smaller than the gulf between alien plasma small arms and... pretty much anything humanity has. Go figure that they would implement similar protocols to safeguard that technology then.

Edited December 3, 2013 by Surrealistik

[StellarRat]

I think Surrealistik is correct. There are multiple good reasons to personalize weapons. If it weren't for the fact that implanting chips in humans was frowned upon we'd already have it.