Post Your Mission Takings Here

[Belmakor]

In an aim to help balancing I thought it might be useful if a few folk could report on missions they have carried out in the context of how much material they recovered and how much sales were made.

If they could also estimate how much it cost them to replace any lost soldiers, weapons, armour etc.

I am finding it hard to make any net gains in any missions beyond Scouts at present as I usually lose at least one piece of expensive equipment ($40,000 rifle, or $20,000 armour) which pretty much negates the income.

I want to see if I am the only one struggling with this side of the economy past December (in the game).

[Redwallzyl]

I'm doing fine just don't take risks if you think someone might be killed just use lots of explosives that solves most problems.

[kraex]

Another example of a too tightly tuned economy forcing specific play style. I know one of the devs said he'd be playing the OG over the holidays to see why the OG has right. This is part of it.

[Ol' Stinky]

I wouldn't say the OG was right. Laser factories broke the economy, and I don't want to see that in Xenonauts, really. Bel's right: the problem is that the cost of equipment's balanced around soldiers not being killed by overdamage weapons. Turn that off in weapons_gc.xml and it should help, as long as you win the missions or take the equipment back with you when you retreat.

Xeno's unstable for me at the moment, sadly, but landing ships generally gave me $14k-18k in terms of money. The airstrike option for them is $70k.

[kraex]

I wouldn't say the OG was right. Laser factories broke the economy' date=' and I don't want to see that in Xenonauts.[/quote']

There's a lot of room between "free laser economy" and "I'm doing ground missions and can't make any money even when I win." Some people (see other posts) think aliens should kill 1-2 soldiers per mission. If losing one wipes out all of your gain for a mission, that's an equally broken economy in the other direction. It's great that you can "tweak the XML" but that's not really the intended mode for releasing a balanced game. As this is a discussion for for balance, well... I don't think custom mods are the right answer. We're supposed to be providing feedback on the beta so the game can be balanced at release for the average user to play without modding the game. Right?

[ElMyamo]

There's a lot of room between "free laser economy" and "I'm doing ground missions and can't make any money even when I win." Some people (see other posts) think aliens should kill 1-2 soldiers per mission. If losing one wipes out all of your gain for a mission, that's an equally broken economy in the other direction. It's great that you can "tweak the XML" but that's not really the intended mode for releasing a balanced game. As this is a discussion for for balance, well... I don't think custom mods are the right answer. We're supposed to be providing feedback on the beta so the game can be balanced at release for the average user to play without modding the game. Right?

I agree with you here, the game should provide a balanced experience without the need to mod the game. But I think (as I have written in the suggestion part of the forum) that there should be more options available when starting a new game, players should have the option to chose, for example, more difficult ground combat & tougher aliens without aircombat and funding becoming harder.

A lot of balancing is subjective, in my opinion. I really think the changes in the numbers of UFOs per wave is a good thing, but I really can't go into detail here because the game breaks for me after groundcombat. So I reserve the right to change my opinion

[legit1337]

Agreed.

I've been saying for the past month that doing ground missions needs to give like 2-3x the amount of money gained by airstriking the same site, (Or yield positive nation score, or some combination thereof) to offset the cost of casualties and equipment.

Nobody seems to have been listening.

[Ol' Stinky]

My point was that it's alien overdamage that screws up the economy the most, not that you should mod it out and then not provide any feedback. I was just showing how you can mod it out if you wanted, since it's a relatively quick and easy way to improve the game. Would increasing money gained from missions help? In one sense, yes. But it's not actually addressing a big problem with Xenonauts: losing soldiers can be crippling, despite wanting to be a game that wants a constant casualty rate. (Another aspect of this is that rookies are too naff and vets too good.)

Without overdamage, the financial losses are massively reduced as long as you win the mission in the end. For example, in that $14k "victory" I got rushed by a couple of reapers and sebs wielding plasma cannons. I took out the reapers first, and lost a couple of guys to cannon fire (RIP). One had jackal armour ($20k?) and they both had laser rifles ($80k). Lost forever, regardless of the rest of the mission! I got some tech, but talk about a Phyrric victory. Your common or garden soldier costs nothing except in maint. fees, but losing those three pieces of equipment was a huge blow.

I guess my suggestion to the devs would be this: engineers should be able to repair "destroyed" equipment salvaged at the end of a mission. The costs of repairs can be balanced separately to making a brand new weapon, like 50% of the original cost or so. A laser rifle would be $20k and 2 alloys to repair.

Edited December 23, 2013 by Ol' Stinky

[legit1337]

Or overdamage should not destroy equipment?

I honestly think it should IMO. But the balance issues it introduces make things problematic

[Ol' Stinky]

Yeah, it's definately cool, but overdamage's knock-on effect is pretty damn grim. If nothing else, overdamage weapons should gib the soldiers. I'd miss that.

I s'pose that giving non-overdamage alien weapons some chance of destroying equipment and then outright slashing the cost of stuff is another idea, but I'm not keen on it. It seems like it'd be damn hard to balance out. Shifting the costs onto hiring new soldiers would be better, but it'd still mean that one lost battle could be game over, depending on time of month. When I have 2 large/3 small bases going, my end of month paycheck goes mostly to maintenence.

[mrsisk]

This $14k victory you're talking about...is that the cash total you got at the end of the mission? I ask because in my v19 stable gameplay, I'm seeing total cash in the range of $35 - $65 per mission. I've got people in Jackal armore, but no laser weapons yet.

Seems to me the easiest and most logical way to improve this would be to make alien weapons sales at LEAST as valuable as building a new laster weapon. I mean, their tech is better than ours, especially early game. Governments/scientists the world around would pay top dollar for that hardware for research...and since the Xenonauts are the only source in the world...supply and demand, baby. We've got to cover our overhead.

Yeah?

P.S. I'm playing the cheaty way (saving and reloading often) because this isn't the final game and I'm just curious to see what's in it, rather than challenging myself to "beat" the game. So I don't lose troops and so far have not had the issue you're discussing.

[StellarRat]

Wouldn't it be easier to just demand the technical specifications from XCom?... After all they are paying for XCom to even exist. (I know, too realistic, takes away the fun, etc...)

[mrsisk]

You think they'd trust us to give them the real specs? He, he.

Here's a thought, though...if you use a lot of explosives, does that cut down on the # of weapons you have to sell? I mean alerium grenades, drop one at the feet of a enemy and POOF! no enemy at all. Just a spot left on the ground. So maybe blowing 'em up too much cuts down on your revenue? I don't know 'cos I shoot 'em all mostly. Except rockets. I love rockets. Too. Much.

[ElMyamo]

You think they'd trust us to give them the real specs? He, he.

Here's a thought, though...if you use a lot of explosives, does that cut down on the # of weapons you have to sell? I mean alerium grenades, drop one at the feet of a enemy and POOF! no enemy at all. Just a spot left on the ground. So maybe blowing 'em up too much cuts down on your revenue? I don't know 'cos I shoot 'em all mostly. Except rockets. I love rockets. Too. Much.

Yep, blowing aliens up really hurts your bottom line. It's fun, though

[Dranak]

You think they'd trust us to give them the real specs? He, he.

Here's a thought, though...if you use a lot of explosives, does that cut down on the # of weapons you have to sell? I mean alerium grenades, drop one at the feet of a enemy and POOF! no enemy at all. Just a spot left on the ground. So maybe blowing 'em up too much cuts down on your revenue? I don't know 'cos I shoot 'em all mostly. Except rockets. I love rockets. Too. Much.

Yeah, explosives where changed a few builds back to destroy equipment because frag grenade spam was too good otherwise. It was getting a bit silly with squads consisting heavily of soldiers with nothing but shields and frag grenades as the main thrust of a strategy. The economic hit was added to discourage that, while still leaving it as an option in game (along with grenade range nerf to make it harder to execute).

[StellarRat]

I have no second thoughts about blowing up aliens and all there equipment. Sure you might lose some money, but dead experienced soldiers are hard to replace. So, unless, I have overwelming advantage in firepower (it's a sure kill somehow) I will always toss a grenade, rocket, C4 at someone when I have a good chance to hit.

[thothkins]

I'm with StellarRat. I keep my rocketeer back a little, but I will splat the alien if I think one of my troops is in any real danger.

[ElMyamo]

I'm with StellarRat. I keep my rocketeer back a little, but I will splat the alien if I think one of my troops is in any real danger.

I usually do the same, all my snipers are equipped with a rocket launcher as a secondary weapon, and if any of my scouts are in danger (or if my snipers just need a clear line of fire) i just blast away.

It's a lot cheaper than losing soldiers.

[Ol' Stinky]

This $14k victory you're talking about...is that the cash total you got at the end of the mission? I ask because in my v19 stable gameplay, I'm seeing total cash in the range of $35 - $65 per mission. I've got people in Jackal armore, but no laser weapons yet.

From a landing ship? Yep, it's the figure that appears on the debrief screen. I'm a stingy git and I hate blowing up money, so I use frag-type grenades only in emergencies, and I don't use any rockets. Rocket launchers are basically the best gun, but theoretically balanced out because you pay for each kill.

[Chris]

Hmmm. We (or at least I) hadn't really considered the effect of overdamage on the Xenonauts themselves - it's meant to be something that discourages you from using too many explosives on the aliens.

But a quick glance at weapons_gc suggests that both alien grenades, the Medium and Heavy drone and the Plasma Cannon all inflict overdamage. So I can see how that would wipe out a lot of money.

I'd quite like to disable the overdamage for alien weapons, but that would remove the gib effect too. We may have to do some code changes so we can have the lovely gibbing without the monetary impact. Worrying about which weapon is most expensive to be shot by isn't a particularly exciting gameplay mechanic.

[StellarRat]

Hmmm. We (or at least I) hadn't really considered the effect of overdamage on the Xenonauts themselves - it's meant to be something that discourages you from using too many explosives on the aliens.

But a quick glance at weapons_gc suggests that both alien grenades, the Medium and Heavy drone and the Plasma Cannon all inflict overdamage. So I can see how that would wipe out a lot of money.

I'd quite like to disable the overdamage for alien weapons, but that would remove the gib effect too. We may have to do some code changes so we can have the lovely gibbing without the monetary impact. Worrying about which weapon is most expensive to be shot by isn't a particularly exciting gameplay mechanic.

No, I think you should leave it as is. The game is far more forgiving about equipment damage than the OG already. If you'll recall, when a soldier was killed in the OG his armor died too, no matter what type of weapon killed him. I believe his weapons went away too if the damage was caused by explosives. I mean, you really can't think that a soldiers stuff is going to survive every battle, at least I don't. The alien grenades are already too nerfed IMO. I've had soldiers in Wolf take three and four without dying, same with my Hunter.

If you to change something along these lines, I suggest you allow dead vehicles to be refurbished just like the fighters unless they have been totally vaporized i.e. if there is a wreck on the battlefield it can be refurbished, if it's simply gone, it's gone. If I recall over 1/2 of the tanks knocked out in WW II were actually dragged back to a depot and put back in operation in short order. Only the ones that burned or were blown up were complete losses normally.

Edited December 24, 2013 by StellarRat

[legit1337]

@StellarRat

The problem that the monetary losses for replacing this equipment often greatly outweighs anything you get for the mission. By a lot.

You lose two guys in jackal armor with laser rifles and that's $220,000 down the drain. That's two no-losses cruiser missions just to break even.

[Mooton]

I believe his weapons went away too if the damage was caused by explosives.

Actually all carried items would survive anything and everything done to the unit with them. Now, when the unit was unconscious or dead and all the equipment was on the ground, a single explosion (no matter the damage) would destroy everything including the unit's body (dead or alive).

[Ol' Stinky]

No, I think you should leave it as is. The game is far more forgiving about equipment damage than the OG already. If you'll recall, when a soldier was killed in the OG his armor died too, no matter what type of weapon killed him. I believe his weapons went away too if the damage was caused by explosives. I mean, you really can't think that a soldiers stuff is going to survive every battle, at least I don't. The alien grenades are already too nerfed IMO. I've had soldiers in Wolf take three and four without dying, same with my Hunter.

If you to change something along these lines, I suggest you allow dead vehicles to be refurbished just like the fighters unless they have been totally vaporized i.e. if there is a wreck on the battlefield it can be refurbished, if it's simply gone, it's gone. If I recall over 1/2 of the tanks knocked out in WW II were actually dragged back to a depot and put back in operation in short order. Only the ones that burned or were blown up were complete losses normally.

I'd only be fine with overdamage if equipment costs were lowered to compensate. Otherwise you risk losing the X-Com feel of expendable soldiers. I sacrificed four rookies to the gods of RNG pretty much every mission in the OG. I can't give a rookie a used laser gun in this without risking a huge fine.

[StellarRat]

@StellarRat

The problem that the monetary losses for replacing this equipment often greatly outweighs anything you get for the mission. By a lot.

You lose two guys in jackal armor with laser rifles and that's $220,000 down the drain. That's two no-losses cruiser missions just to break even.

I hadn't considered the financial gains vs. losses part of it. OK, you guys changed my mind. I still think alien grenades are too wimpy though.