[release candidate] Something is seriously screwed up

[legit1337]

Just got back from out of town and fired up xenonauts to play the release candidate. Veteran difficulty.

I got -100,000$ out of a total of 300,000$ possible funding for australasia on the FIRST WAVE, two days in. Maybe I got unlucky you say? Not when I also got -50,000$ out of 180,000$ possible for the middle east too, along with -40,000$ out of 212,000$ for north africa.

What gives? Why did anyone think that losing a third of TWO region's funding in the FIRST wave was ok? This is absolutely insane!

EDIT: Later waves seem to have normal funding hits, what gives on the huge funding losses on the first wave?

Edited May 31, 2014 by legit1337

[KevinHann]

Isn't the first wave supposed to be critical, it's intended to go that way (so that you need to change your pants trembling for your very existence after)?

[lemm]

It's not that much. You will gain a lot from the regions that you protect, although you will still probably end up losing a bit overall after the first month.

Remember, you still have to lose 4 regions to lose the game outright.

[Chris]

You got unlucky with the RNG, it seems. None of the Light Scout relations damage stuff has changed for weeks.

[Caaygun]

I got -440.000 total by end of september. Though the new 3M start gives you that edge to survive it so it seems nice balance. Now that they've made bases cost 1M, I can't build a second in september so I go on to build 2 more bases on 1 October to cover the rest of the world. The new balance works fine and fair with me. The new Foxtrot capability to solo the scout also proves crucial for this.

[Solver]

I also got -360k in September, the worst I have ever seen from the first month. Probably just bad luck, and I was able to do much better in the second month anyway.

[Chris]

Oh, the problem is that I've made the Air Superiority missions appear pretty much every wave except the first now. They're the ones that inflict the heaviest funding damage.

[Solver]

Sounds like that's it, even my first or second detected UFO was a Fighter. I guess this will make serious funding losses inevitable in September, for better or worse.

[va_ghost]

Getting unlucky with RNG should not overly punish the player because, at the moment, an unrealistic baseline is in place. Do not punish the PLAYER for not adhering to a one size fits all strategy. I'm just staring month 3 and my North America funding is less than 100K. Month 1 to month 2 the drop was <100K. Let's analyse that shall we. I can only be in one place at one time unless I stretch myself so thin as to be unrealistic. A few UFOs appear over N.A. and their funding drops to Zimbabwe levels? Are you kidding me? I'd rather go back to lower initial funding levels that are not completely broken because a UFO few over a continent of 1/2 a billion people and scared a few farmers in places and abducted a whole 20 people.

I do not see any funding MODS to address this. I guess reading the forums where people are discussing three bases in three months is the only viable strategy instead of a space for time strategy. I just had a -500,000 month because of alien missions over NA and Australasia even though I am in process of building and supplying a second base. The funding drops WAYYY too rapidly. It's like the governments of the world went

"you haven't completely cleared every ounce of sky as you just began.."

XCOM: "But out range of out fighters.."

"We don't care.. I have important constituents in places and they saw a single UFO and we have to completely give up our funding and spend our money instead on x,z,z"

XCOM: But to go from 1/2 million to less than 100K in 60 days is unrealistic.

"You didn't follow our undocumented and unrealistic strategy of a three minimalistic fighter bases with just radar and fighters, as we only give out points for shooting down aliens, not successfully clearing the wrecks and surviving - who cares out success there.. only results in developing new technologies to fight them"

Zero alien bases

Zero terror missions

Complete success in round missions.

But suddenly the politicians care most about air superiority missions? They result in: Zero industrial capacity damage. Zero infrastructure damage. Zero major civilian losses. ..and game design wise only your shortest range fighter can stop them and their range absolutely is godawful so naturally we make the missions hardest to stop the most damaging though the civilian governments would care about those the least.

Edited June 1, 2014 by va_ghost

[legit1337]

I agree, something is not right, I'm getting nets as high as -500,000 in month 1, and that was shooting down 5 UFOs. I lost half of the funding for russia AND both africas.

[spacebug]

I agree, something is not right, I'm getting nets as high as -500,000 in month 1, and that was shooting down 5 UFOs. I lost half of the funding for russia AND both africas.

On what difficulty are you playing? I lost a bit more than 400k during month 1, but i'm playing on insane, so i was kind of expecting that.

[legit1337]

On what difficulty are you playing? I lost a bit more than 400k during month 1, but i'm playing on insane, so i was kind of expecting that.

Veteran lol, depending on RNG the first month could be quiet and you only get -300,000.... or you can get absolutely slammed (my latest game I got -487,000, even after shooting down 5 UFOs).

[Chris]

All funding provided by the funding nations was increased by 30% in the final week or so of balancing. Obviously that also means any funding drop (or gain) is also going to be increased by 30% too, so don't just use raw figures in isolation.

I don't really see the game as being unbalanced. Even if it was, now the game is out I'm not doing further balance changes for a while.

[legit1337]

All funding provided by the funding nations was increased by 30% in the final week or so of balancing. Obviously that also means any funding drop (or gain) is also going to be increased by 30% too, so don't just use raw figures in isolation.

I don't really see the game as being unbalanced. Even if it was, now the game is out I'm not doing further balance changes for a while.

By increasing the funding levels and hits by 30% you have also increased the variances between a good month and a bad month, how you do your first month is extremely RNG dependent.

Doubling the base setup costs while only increasing funding levels by 30% left us a lot less money in the early game, which was already pretty tight. Granted, a 30% funding increase gives you an extra 629,000$ at the end of the month, but the 30% hike to funding hits from UFO events, and the halving of funds from ground mission/airstriking negates this. Throw this on top of the greater variance in funding hits over a period of time due to RNG... I'm not sure I am a fan of that randomness.

EDIT: I stand by what I've said, some of the funding hits are too big. I just lost a THIRD of europe's funding in a single WAVE. It is supposed to be the first month FFS. There were 6 events, all taking away 15,000 funding each, out of a total of 300,000. I expect that on insane, not veteran.

Going by this, it is possible (if unlikely) to lose a region in the first month. Which should NEVER happen IMO.

Edited June 2, 2014 by legit1337

[theothersider]

Hi guys!

fully agreed with legit..the last version for me is a bit unbalanced(economically)..at the end of 3rd month i have lost 3 region and another 2 is going..(veteran dif)the older versions are much better, the bases is too costly(750k would be optimal for me) calculating the cost of building hangars,radar and aircrafts ,maintenance and continous loss of money and ridiculous founding from the few nations with the"+" sign on the founding list building a rag of air defence is really hard! with this cash even losing a man in combat is a hard blow on my finances, not to spoke about making armours and laser weapons.

..the game is bit frustrating now..

[Chris]

If you're playing on the Experimental branch there's an extra page at the back of the Quickstart Guide which gives a playguide that'll get you through month 1 and 2 pretty easily. Maybe see if that works for you?

If it does, then could you let me know what you were doing differently beforehand? It's kinda hard for me to see how new players play the Geoscape because most people on the forum have played a lot of Xenonauts.

[theothersider]

i have played a lot of xeno's..and the last build have impressed a lot..negatively..the old economic balance set seen more accurate..this is a lot crippling in early game a loss of 500k is a bit hard to absorb..a less traumatic impact is welcome and is less dangerous on long term strategic chooses

[ntalas]

Although I come from an XCOM background (the originals and the Firaxis), geoscape funding seems unbalanced. Here is how I played the game, in case it would help:

1. As a new player I tend to focus on ground combat.
   
2. Then, at the end of the first month I learn the hard way that I need to pay a lot of attention to the Geoscape.
   
3. Then, I play close attention to the geoscape and focus my reseach on new aircrafs and ammunition.
   
4. I finally loose three regions, but because I have three bases I am not going to lose the game.
   
5. Funding is so tight (2.2M earning, 2.3M expenses) that I have to do as many ground missions as possible. This slows down the pace of the game and make it a bit tedious.
   
6. I am not playing anymore, until version 1.04+ where these issues will be fixed.
   

Other than that (and some minor glitches), this game rocks!