% TU vs Static TU firing cost

[Ol' Stinky]

Does the reaction fire system take into account the total TU's remaining or the percentage of TU's remaining when calculating the chance to take a reaction shot?

I think it's like the OG now, where each unit has an initiative score based on reaction stat * (current TU/max TU). Walking into LoS of an enemy with higher initiative will always trigger reaction fire. (That's if I'm remembering the OG system correctly.) The previous reaction fire system seemed to be a roll of some kind per action, I'm not sure of the specifics.

[victorix58]

Wish we could do a poll on this. Is there some way to do a poll?

[StellarRat]

On the other hand, however, TUs are no longer the dominant soldier attribute: every soldier benefits from being able to shoot more, while not every soldier benefits (greatly) from being able to move more.

I also wonder whether the benefit of extra movement, as opposed to extra movement and shooting, isn't being undervalued.

But what's more fun and exciting? A soldier that can shoot more and takes out aliens like Clint Eastwood takes out Mexican gunslingers OR a soldier that can move faster...I know what my answer is.

Also, most of real benefit of being able to move faster comes when you can combine it with using a weapon.

Example: Major StellarRat runs into a room, tosses two grenades and runs back out and around the corner. Poor Private StellarRat can only move into the room and throw one grenade, then stand there and hope the aliens don't mow him down when their turn rolls around. So, by making shooting % of TU you've effectively destroyed really awesome combined action attacks because now TUs required for the shooting part are MUCH higher for Major StellarRat. Having a high movement speed really doesn't buy you much on it's own. Most of the time if you're smart you keep your squad together and by default that means moving at the speed of the slowest guy. Sure, the fast guy COULD race ahead of the rest of the men, but that's generally suicidal.

Edited February 27, 2014 by StellarRat

[Headnoob]

Then you should probably go play a game that's designed to be "fun" by that standard of being practically immortal.

Without the game remaining challenging throughout what is the point of it, xenonauts is what the game is called, it isn't the rebooted XCOM where death isn't possible after a few level ups.

When it comes to major design choices like this, the developer should do what's right for their vision, which seems to be clearly in favour of it being percentage based.

[StellarRat]

Then you should probably go play a game that's designed to be "fun" by that standard of being practically immortal.

Without the game remaining challenging throughout what is the point of it, xenonauts is what the game is called, it isn't the rebooted XCOM where death isn't possible after a few level ups.

When it comes to major design choices like this, the developer should do what's right for their vision, which seems to be clearly in favour of it being percentage based.

But in Xenonauts you're not "immortal" even when you do have a high TU soldier. My example was a little tongue in cheek. I don't expect my individual soldiers to be able to gun down multiple aliens in one turn. But having a soldier that can go around a corner, take a couple of snapshots, and retreat back doesn't seem unreasonable to me. I've lost many Captains and Majors. I'm not asking for immortal troops. Just really good ones if you manage to keep them alive long enough. That's not easy. I've never had the mythical 100 TU soldier. I'm just happy when one manages to break 70 TUs. That's why I'm advocating for diminishing returns based experience system. It prevents super soldiers, but saves having some that can perform multiple actions. Edited February 28, 2014 by StellarRat

[victorix58]

TUs were always the most important stat. Now, TUs are just movement speed. Why connect weapon firing to TUs at all? Why not call it "Mvt" and simply you get X number of shots with a gun? It's like the most crucial stat was suddenly struck from the game.

Developers should take note for the future - using gamers as the beta testers can garner balance-related disappointment. For months we have expected that TUs are the way to go, now they have even less relevance than strength.

[kabill]

But what's more fun and exciting? A soldier that can shoot more and takes out aliens like Clint Eastwood takes out Mexican gunslingers OR a soldier that can move faster...I know what my answer is.

I see what you're getting at, but I think the problem is that we're wanting two different games. Personally, I don't care about having Clint Eastwood-style super-soldiers, hence I'm happy with the guy who can move faster and contribute in a specific way to the squad.

EDIT: To avoid confusion, I'm not saying that either version of the game is necessarily or 'objectively' better than the other. That, indeed, is pretty much the problem. But that point cuts both ways: I don't think the answer to your question is as self-evident as you imply.

Example: Major StellarRat runs into a room, tosses two grenades and runs back out and around the corner. Poor Private StellarRat can only move into the room and throw one grenade, then stand there and hope the aliens don't mow him down when their turn rolls around. So, by making shooting % of TU you've effectively destroyed really awesome combined action attacks because now TUs required for the shooting part are MUCH higher for Major StellarRat. Having a high movement speed really doesn't buy you much on it's own. Most of the time if you're smart you keep your squad together and by default that means moving at the speed of the slowest guy. Sure, the fast guy COULD race ahead of the rest of the men, but that's generally suicidal.

Again, different kinds of game. Yes, flat TU costs mean more more awesome combinations of actions with high TU soldiers. That's a good thing (if you want very powerful soldiers) or a bad thing (if you don't).

Taking up the point about the value of extra movement, again I think it's being undervalued. Take your narrative example: extra TUs are the difference between being able to lob a grenade and get back into cover, or not. The getting-back-into-cover part is *really important*; your narrative doesn't need throwing two grenades to make Major StellarRat better. But extra move can matter in plenty of other ways, too: reaching a spot of cover; moving into a position to flank; getting into grenade range; being able to scout further and return to a place of safety; etc.

I'd argue, then, that there's a lot of subtle, interesting stuff you can do with increased movement. It's not just about being able to move further; it's about having more options and flexibility. This, I think, is overshadowed by flat TU costs for shots because taking more/better shots is almost always a better use of TUs. Making TUs about extra movement/flexibility rather than about more shots makes the tactical game - for me - more interesting in various subtle ways, as opposed to reducing TUs to firepower.

EDIT 2: All this said, I do think there's some potential in the lower TU cap and reduced TU gain solutions, too. I'm not sure whether that solves the problem of shooting being the best use of TUs (but I might be the only person who cares about that!); it should stop large gains in firepower however.

Edited February 28, 2014 by kabill

[StellarRat]

I'm not sure whether that solves the problem of shooting being the best use of TUs (but I might be the only person who cares about that!); it should stop large gains in firepower however.

But that IS the main purpose of soldiers, to shoot. They aren't there to run marathons. Soldiers are just the most ancient of weapon platforms. Their job is to carry a weapon to a position that allows them to fire at and kill the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible without getting killed themselves preferrably. That's the bottom line. So, spending TUs to fire should be the best use of TUs overall.

Also worth mentioning, with a diminishing returns system it be VERY rare or impossible to ever have a soldier that could fire more than two "normal" shots from any weapon other than a pistol. Even under the old system I never had a soldier that could fire two bursts/aimed from a weapon. How, many of you ever had a soldier with more than 79 TUs even under the old system? Not me. They usually die long before they get that good. Maybe I'm just a bad commander, but "accidents" and mistakes happen to nearly every soldier eventually.

Edited February 28, 2014 by StellarRat

[legit1337]

I can firstly see the argument that it makes moving and shooting more of a chore because the shot costs change on a per-soldier basis. You can use the reserve mode to make this easier, but it's still not as simple as remembering to save 20 TU or 40 TU (or whatever).

I can also see the argument that it reduces the progression available to your soldiers, with high-end soldiers feeling less powerful.

In terms of mitigation, we can probably work out something to fix the first issue. Aaron's suggested that perhaps character paths would have little labels on them that would show you how far you can move before you no longer have the TU required for each type of shot.

The second issue is a bit more thorny because the objection is the exact issue the change was intended to fix: high-TU units are extremely powerful. Making them less powerful will naturally give the players less progression, but also makes the game more balanced at end-game level.

TU is currently a super-stat that we have to treat differently from other stats - e.g. it has a lower starting range for new soldiers, as soldiers with low TU are useless and high TU are amazing. In my view, it's overpowered. As a developer, it's difficult to filter out whether objections are primarily because your change has nerfed a user's favourite toy, or because of genuine design issues.

I think you hit the nail on the head chris.

If you fix these 2 problems I would have no problem with the TU% system.

Of the two I think the veterans not being significantly better then the rookies is my largest concern.

I really LIKED having supersoldiers. Commanding a squad of them felt much much different then commanding a squad of rookies. Veterans SHOULD be significantly better then rookies, by a factor of at least 50% (IE, a veteran should be able to move 150% the distance a rookie can, can fire 150% as accurately).

That was one of the fun aspects of the game... keeping your men alive until they had the stats to be godly.

[kabill]

But that IS the main purpose of soldiers, to shoot. They aren't there to run marathons. Soldiers are just the most ancient of weapon platforms. Their job is to carry a weapon to a position that allows them to fire at and kill the enemy as quickly and efficiently as possible without getting killed themselves preferrably. That's the bottom line. So, spending TUs to fire should be the best use of TUs overall.

Sorry, I wasn't arguing that shooting isn't (or should't) be the best use of TUs on any given turn. My point was that *because* shooting is almost always best, it makes the use of bonus TUs a no-brainer: more TUs = more shots. (At least, this has been true when I have played the game and, from what other people are writing, I think it's safe to generalize that statement.)

But if having a high number of TUs doesn't translate into extra shots, then there is no longer a simple way of using additional TUs. It's not simply a matter of 'take more shots'; your tactics have to take advantage of the additional mobility, otherwise the advantage of high TUs is wasted.

The 'problem' I was referring to, then, wasn't about shooting being best (it obviously is and should be). It was referring to the consequence of shooting being best: that having more TUs leads almost automatically to the obvious choice of taking more shots. There's nothing necessarily wrong with that, but I think it is less interesting than a system where more TUs provide greater mobility and flexibility, since the bonus gained from having extra TUs is not then immediately obvious in (almost) all situations.

[mrxny]

Also worth mentioning, with a diminishing returns system it be VERY rare or impossible to ever have a soldier that could fire more than two "normal" shots from any weapon other than a pistol. .

You can post all the formulas and square roots you want. It all goes right to the same point.

Like I said before:

Why cant the developers just admit "They only want you to shoot once per turn".

Its like you built a mansion to cover a dead body instead of just leaving the body in the dirt.

Edited February 28, 2014 by mrxny

[legit1337]

You can post all the formulas and square roots you want. It all goes right to the same point.

Like I said before:

Why cant the developers just admit "They only want you to shoot once per turn".

Its like you built a mansion to cover a dead body instead of just leaving the body in the dirt.

As much as I disagree with the way this guy says stuff. He has a point. The TU% systems seems like an awfully elaborate way to do something very simple.

[Asmodean]

You can post all the formulas and square roots you want. It all goes right to the same point.

Like I said before:

Why cant the developers just admit "They only want you to shoot once per turn".

Its like you built a mansion to cover a dead body instead of just leaving the body in the dirt.

Actually I think the developers have been pretty clear the change is indeed intended to limit your number of shots (at least the number of shots from veterans). But its once per turn for some guns, twice for others, more for pistols, and then there is the strategy of choosing which type of shot you will take and how far you want/need to move.

So the current system is far more than something as static as you get x move and shoot once.

And MRXNY I have seen you post several times that you dont like this system but you have not really made any suggestion other than go back to how it was... but how it was, was broken in the end game because of the old system. Did you ever play the end game? Super soldier vs super aliens? Basically whoever got line of sight first mowed down the enemy with endless shots.... so it was not really very fun. One unlucky round and your entire squad of veterans is gone! The new system seems to be maintaining a much better balance between rookies and veterans, early and late game.

And if you REALLY still don't like it... remember Chris gave you a switch to put it back and play the old way.

[Skitso]

As a former game designer myself, I tried to use as organic, natural feeling and easy to understand rules as possible. Somehow it goes back to my hobby beign a board game enthusiast.

In board games you can't have over complicated calculations and everything needs to be relative simple, even when the game is complex. This drives game designers to polish their rules to as simple as possible. In the very best board games' rules, you can see really elaborate systems to make complex things relatively simple - and that's what I appreciate in games: natural, organic rules you don't need to check in the manual every time you start playing. They just feel... don't know the word... obvious? (And this doesn't mean I like simple games, quite the contrary)

In Xenonauts, I feel that it's less abstact to see a guy with X TU's and instantly know he can shoot Y times with weapon Z. I can, of course, see the benefits in the %-TU system in general, but I'm not that fond of the game then needing additional aids (like snap, normal and aimed shot markings in the movement squares) for the player to be able to make gameplay decisions. It just screams that this system we use is over complicated and we needed to add this and that system for you to able to play.

That said, I'm completely fine with both systems. I just prefer the one that is easier to use without the game needing to help me play it.

Edited February 28, 2014 by Skitso

[Phiveaces]

Just wanted to add my 2 cents.

I would prefer the V21 Exp 4, not the %. Even in 93, I thought the % stuff was BS.

End game should be super soldier vs super alien. You need to move within cover and then you will survive, and I don't see why anyone is complaining. Just leave a couple soldiers with high reflexes some spare TU's and they will murder the aliens after their first shot! if you are eating 5+ shots from aliens, then you are not playing the game properly. Part of it is to be prepared for their counter attack. The entire game (including the alien accuracy) felt fairly well balanced. Expect death... hope for life... its the way its gone for all of original games....

Your implemented change of % also does not change the potency of TUs. They are still.... and should always be... the most important statistic for your soldier. It represents speed in all forms.... something which should be GREATLY different between rookies and seasoned soldiers. While it does "nerf" soldiers a fair bit... it does not change the balance of the game... other than forces aliens to be somewhat more timid in engaging, and fixing this will require more work on top.

While I agree damage should be related to accuracy, it should only effect damage on a per shot basis... so instead of your 50% to 150% of base damage, you could then multiply the result by accuracy( or acc/100) .. to indicate how well each soldier is at hitting critical anatomical points of the aliens, much in the same way the interrogation ( or autopsy.... sorry forget which one... ) does.

<sarcasm>

I mean... why not just make it so you can do 2 actions per soldier per turn? either do a long run, ( perhaps call it a dash ) and/or fire a shot. You could even just use the TU's as explicit "distance" metric.??? seems this would make for a well balanced game....

</sarcasm>

In the end... I don't think the reasoning for this TU change is valid. I think you guys are attempting to fix something that was never broken to begin with....

Edited February 28, 2014 by Phiveaces

[Sleet01]

I just want to comment on one specific aspect of the 21Ev5 change: it is now impossible to move more than a square or two and fire heavy weapons, no matter how high a soldier's TU level is, so why even bother with the 30% move-and-fire penalty? Is it the developer's desire that heavy weapons be able to move *or* fire, but not both?

In 21Ev4 it was possible and useful to level up a heavy weapon gunner to act as a mobile suppression shooter, even if they didn't have enough TUs to move very far or fire twice in a turn. 65 TUs would let a veteran heavy gunner advance alongside a squad that was hopscotching between cover points to provide suppression fire, albeit not very accurately. It was possible to use them in ambusade, popping out from behind cover after aliens showed themselves to fire and then pop back. Now neither is possible.

I'd propose a hybrid system where the TUs required to use a weapon were scaled to a soldier's starting TUs, but ignored additional TUs gained through experience. E.G. make heavy weapons take 90% of a soldier's starting TUs. For heavy weapons this would avoid double-firing for all but the most elite soldiers, but support the reported desire of allowing extra movement with gained TUs. Right now I'm not seeing the extra movement, and it's pretty frustrating.

[KateMicucci]

I just want to comment on one specific aspect of the 21Ev5 change: it is now impossible to move more than a square or two and fire heavy weapons, no matter how high a soldier's TU level is, so why even bother with the 30% move-and-fire penalty?

Good point. The heavy weapon movement penalty is awkward and a little counter-intuitive, and now we have a good reason to get rid of it. The high TU% cost of heavy weapons adequately represent the time needed to stabilize them up before firing.

As far as implementing any hybrid system, there's no point.

The game can't be balanced with the exception that you will have elite soldiers to fight elite aliens. One bad terror mission can knock you down to privates. Demanding the return of exponential super soldiers and also expecting the game to be balanced for teams consisting of both entirely majors+ and entirely privates is unreasonable.

Edited February 28, 2014 by KateMicucci

[Sleet01]

I honestly don't care how the game is balanced at the upper end. If people want to grind it out until they have sixteen Captain Americas dual-wielding plasma gatlings that they tore off of interceptors with their bare hands, that's their prerogative. I *do* want a heavy weapons soldier who has been on ten missions to be able to walk more than two squares and fire in the same turn.

[Alturys]

Hi guys

I love the new system and i think you haven't any other way to reduce TU scaling endgame.

I have a suggestion regarding keeping TU for shooting. Use the same coloration algo that is used for weapon range :

- Green light line when all shot are allowed if the soldier move to that tile.

- Darker green when moving to this tile will cause the soldier not having enough TU for avanced shot (aimed or burst)

- Yellow when moving to this tile will cause the soldier not having enough TU for standerd shoot also

- Red when to this tile will cause the soldier not having enough TU for snap shoot

When preparing a move, the player will see all the color changing as he is trying to reach further tile. Exactly like when your are trying to shot to far with a pistol. the first part of line is green, the last yellow. Do the same thing with TU mouvement cost.

This would lead to an elegent and convenient way to represent the cost of firing without playing with the keeping enough TU slidder. I think you will probabbly be able to use some code from the range weapon algo and the actual slidder. So the "dev cost" of this system shouldn't be too big.

Ps: The new tile inside UFO are superb. Love it, congralutation to the graphist who did that

Edited February 28, 2014 by Alturys

[radister]

The New system makes more sence to me.

I never did like over powered units to start with. this seems more balance for end game and i think will create more intresting game play and situations.

[Skitso]

I just want to comment on one specific aspect of the 21Ev5 change: it is now impossible to move more than a square or two and fire heavy weapons, no matter how high a soldier's TU level is, so why even bother with the 30% move-and-fire penalty? Is it the developer's desire that heavy weapons be able to move *or* fire, but not both?

In 21Ev4 it was possible and useful to level up a heavy weapon gunner to act as a mobile suppression shooter, even if they didn't have enough TUs to move very far or fire twice in a turn. 65 TUs would let a veteran heavy gunner advance alongside a squad that was hopscotching between cover points to provide suppression fire, albeit not very accurately. It was possible to use them in ambusade, popping out from behind cover after aliens showed themselves to fire and then pop back. Now neither is possible.

I'd propose a hybrid system where the TUs required to use a weapon were scaled to a soldier's starting TUs, but ignored additional TUs gained through experience. E.G. make heavy weapons take 90% of a soldier's starting TUs. For heavy weapons this would avoid double-firing for all but the most elite soldiers, but support the reported desire of allowing extra movement with gained TUs. Right now I'm not seeing the extra movement, and it's pretty frustrating.

This guy/guyette has a point.

[Caaygun]

I just want to comment on one specific aspect of the 21Ev5 change: it is now impossible to move more than a square or two and fire heavy weapons, no matter how high a soldier's TU level is, so why even bother with the 30% move-and-fire penalty? Is it the developer's desire that heavy weapons be able to move *or* fire, but not both?

I think this is intentional. Dev wanted to make heavy weapons more 'static'. I understand the reasoning, and can perhaps only suggest its staticness be perhaps Strength based. You know, a 80 Str guy could wave the MG around like Sylvester Stallone.

Wish we could do a poll on this. Is there some way to do a poll?

Perhaps its best to let it get played around in the experimental, then make the poll to put it in the stable? Seeing just how much reaction to it being there. %TU is pretty much the OG system revived and we didn't really complain about it back then. Though playing with the static TU in the xenonauts, I really thought it felt much better, both with humans and aliens.

Has Dev thought about extending the %TU nerf to grenades as well? now that they are apparently quite OP.

[Chris]

You can post all the formulas and square roots you want. It all goes right to the same point.

Like I said before:

Why cant the developers just admit "They only want you to shoot once per turn".

Its like you built a mansion to cover a dead body instead of just leaving the body in the dirt.

Because you can fire four shots per turn with some weapons, and twice with most of them. Are you struggling to understand that?

The long post is there to convince people with a less simplistic understanding of the issues than you apparently have.

[Chris]

I'll let this debate run and continue to read it, but ultimately I won't be putting up a poll on this decision. We're happy to listen and consider community feedback but ultimately the design decisions are the responsibility of the design team; it's not a good idea to have the game designed by committee.

The MG changes are a separate issue and should be discussed back in the main balance thread, but the increased cost was indeed put in so that players wouldn't be able to move and fire the MG so easily...at least until they get Predator armour, although we'll need to add specific code to reduce TU costs for that.

If you assume combat power as survivability multiplied by damage output, even under this new system then veteran soldiers are four times as good as basic soldiers, can move twice as far, have four times as effective reaction fire and are half as likely to fall victim to morale issues or psionic powers. They're still pretty powerful.

[victorix58]

I guess I'm not really concerned with game balance, because any "imbalances" I saw I attributed to game difficulty (where strong aliens) and advancement and success (where strong xenonauts veterans). So, basically, all the alleged problems made the game more fun, for me.

The ire on this issue is certainly out of hand. I've said my piece and I have nothing left to contribute, so I am out of this conversation. If I can bring myself to play with the changes, I will advise you all if my impression changes.