Save in Combat

[DaNippers]

I like saving during a mission myself, and I disagree that it detracts from the fear factor of the game (Only game that ever really scared me was Resident evil when it first came out and F.E.A.R lol all pop up scare tactics lol). As for the should it be implimented? Well, yes and no, lol The development team don't want it in, then don't add it, My tactics stink but so long as there is a Auto save at mission start or a way to save at mission start I'm fine... Fussing over where I last saved is a Bit of an Annoying feature in some UFO games, Most have a Save at mission start so If I goof I can Redoo the mission, As for it making the game too easy to start from the begining? ummm and Knowing WHERE the enemy is makes it less easy? lol That I noticed, generally when you restart the Mission in this game, It loads everything BACK to the beginning, lol Precognition is a POWERFUL Ability, STart charging Skill points for that lol

But again, I'm fine with whatever Development adopts....

P.S.: When do we get to see more new stuff e.g. whens an update? *Wrings my hands and Drools like eyegore* lol

[AndyBrown]

Just want to add my two cents that no battlescape saves sucks bigtime, for most of the reasons previously posted.  I willl quite often play some other game because I've only got half-an-hour on the computer and I don't think that'll be enough time to clear some of the larger battlescape maps.

Leaving this feature out of the game is simply bad game design. It doesn't increase my fear of any battlescape scenario. It just pisses me off and makes me think about playing something else.  If I paid money for this game, I would be upset.  Because it's free, I'm happy just to grumble 

Cheers,

Andy

[TumbleWeed]

What if there were two versions UFO: AI, the 'Hardcore' release with no in-combat save function and a 'Cakewalk' release which would have unlimited saves during combat. One for those who wish to deny themselves the easy save, and one for those wish more relaxed gameplay. (It's pretty hard to resist saving the game if it can be done easily). Or maybe give the player limited number of in-combat saves, tied to the difficulty level. Or maybe just the option for Ironman mode when choosing the difficulty upon starting a new game (a la Jagged Alliance 2 v1.13).

[SpaceWombat]

What I wonder about is how many people have problems with tactical mission time here. Games with less gentle saviong options which take much more time (and are much more boring) have huge success in the world. So either we Ufo:AI players are a different kind or a minority tries to get the more convenient way for themselves through. 

Anyway, if we are about to make a compromise I would support something like 1-3 fresh extra save slots per tactical mission (we already have one at the beginning since we can restart the mission and before that you are free to save). This way you cannot abuse the feature with mass saving. Therefore it does not change the difficulty level too much. Everyone can be happy and we do not tempt weak characters like myself into choosing the easy way or deciding perfect play is an obligation. 

[Sacrusha]

What I wonder about is how many people have problems with tactical mission time here. Games with less gentle saviong options which take much more time (and are much more boring) have huge success in the world. So either we Ufo:AI players are a different kind or a minority tries to get the more convenient way for themselves through. 

Anyway, if we are about to make a compromise I would support something like 1-3 fresh extra save slots per tactical mission (we already have one at the beginning since we can restart the mission and before that you are free to save). This way you cannot abuse the feature with mass saving. Therefore it does not change the difficulty level too much. Everyone can be happy and we do not tempt weak characters like myself into choosing the easy way or deciding perfect play is an obligation. 

The problem with x saves is one I observed in Daikatana (old 3d Shooter, where you used "save crystals" that where scattered among levels). As an effect, the player will use the saves to win the mission with less losses, and feel penalized when he has to safe and quit because he has to sacrifice one of the saves which he wanted to use to win the mission.
So x saves makes the mission easier by allowing save/load tactics, but doesn't necessarily allow the player to quit the game and resume where he left at any time. The only reasonable option that doesn't make safe/load a tactical feature is a "safe and quit" button combined with some additional precautions to avoid the "safe and quit"-"backup save file"-"load" people (who would complain that safe/load is so cumbersome).

[SpaceWombat]

You are right. My point was more about my own perspective.
If I have 3 savegames (or 2). And the difficulty is not affected by this because nobody uses -in an excessive way- the "look around the corner and reload" thing I will be able to save when I feel comfortable with the progress while not having to quit and the additional option to save and quit if I need to go.

I can reload from a point I was developing good instead of replaying the whole mission if I fail at some point ("soft cheating" if you want, merely because of convenience) while the restrictions will hold me from real cheating abuse. I though of this as a good compromise which might be useful for everyone

If you want to keep it strict of course Sacrusha's thought is better.

[Psawhn]

A forced quit after a save in a tactical mission, combined with deleting the saved file after load, I think would be the best way to go. If the player desperately wants to manually copy a backup of their save file... well, it might just be too much trouble to use some authentication scheme rather than just letting them do it. On the extreme end, players could conceivably just save the memory state of the program, and there's no defense against that.

But if the player finds it too cumbersome to save-backup-load (then to reload, quit-restore-load), then the job has been accomplished, hasn't it?

[Sacrusha]

You are right. My point was more about my own perspective.
If I have 3 savegames (or 2). And the difficulty is not affected by this because nobody uses -in an excessive way- the "look around the corner and reload" thing I will be able to save when I feel comfortable with the progress while not having to quit and the additional option to save and quit if I need to go.

I can reload from a point I was developing good instead of replaying the whole mission if I fail at some point ("soft cheating" if you want, merely because of convenience) while the restrictions will hold me from real cheating abuse. I though of this as a good compromise which might be useful for everyone

If you want to keep it strict of course Sacrusha's thought is better.

It's certainly a way of doing it. However, I don't have any experience with a game that has limited saves with missions that take < 1h a piece, so I don't really know if the limited saves would bother a player if he wanted to/had to shut down the computer mid-mission.

The way I see it, the "save and quit" and the "x saves per mission" could both implemented as independant features in the same game. But "x saves per mission" would slightly alter gameplay and therefore have to be discussed as a gameplay change, while the option to quit the game and resume where you left should not be opposed by anyone, as long as it can't be abused.

But if the player finds it too cumbersome to save-backup-load (then to reload, quit-restore-load), then the job has been accomplished, hasn't it?

Actually, only if there isn't a vocal minority that doesn't find it too cumbersome to do, but sufficiently cumbersome to complain about it. Maybe a little tweak that includes the current time in the savegame and doesn't allow you to load until ~2-3 minutes have passed since the "safe and quit" would be enough? (it also takes you roughly two minutes to edit that part in the file and restart the game)

[SpaceWombat]

Well I think we do not have to bother with the prevention of cheating like in an online shooter. It should be enough to make a clear stand how it is intended to be in the way the saving and loading works.

If someone wants to cheat he certainly can and if someone is willing to invest time and effort to gain a little advantage... he doesn't hurt anyone but himself.

If it is quit and save it would be to bothersome for me to "cheat" and it would be easier to replay the complete mission than to start editing files or something like this.
It is not worth the effort to implement a maximum cheat prevention system in my opinion.

[rooskipow]

 I prefer the "no save in combat" for the tension but I could see allowing 1 save in case a mission runs long and I actually have to do something in RL...Yuk,sunlight,people
 I haven't minded doing any mission over as they are the most fun I've had since X-com.
 I'm old. I love turn based. It was good enough for my father and my fathers father.

[TroubleMaker]

Sometimes in-battle save may have "artistic" purpose.
For example, I have a large collection of UFO:AM saves with funny, or tragical, or just wonderful moments.

One may object me: "use screenshots instead". Acceptable objection. But... but when I have a saved game, I can take screenshots in times and quantities I need.

For example, I have a SG (from :AM) where two "car crabs" were killed so funny, that they looks like one copulating another "in doggy style". And it is very difficult to quickly choose the right point of view to take a brilliant screenshot.

Or, when I wrote my novel, I reloaded "Clearing alien base" SG and take shots for humans and dogs hanging on wall spikes. Or when I brought "system box" from Area-51 and my team was almost wiped during its way back home (who reads Russian: chapter 11), I used the shots from "real" situation.

Etc, etc...

As the workaround, I could suggest the s/l system as it was in first Windows version of "Sid Meyer's Civilization": the player could save the game at any time and in any quantities (just choosing filename), but he could load the SG only with restarting the game - no in-game loads were allowed.

[sirg]

I expect at least an autosave for two parts missions (if there'll be one) so you can go back (retry) to the starting of the 2nd part instead of replaying it all over again

[sathie]

UFO and TFTD got it right.  Each reload forced you to exit to the geoscape, showing you the "you lost" screen, basically.  That's the right way to do it.  If people are okay with seeing that, then it's fine.  If they wanna make it more difficult for themselves then they can do that by not saving.

It'll give much more freedom to map design too.  I'm sure right now you must have some great ideas on the team that are shot down simply because it would be too long or a little more difficult than you think a map should be.  With a save feature (even a limited one) I think you'll open the game up to much more interesting possibilities.

[BTAxis]

I'm sure right now you must have some great ideas on the team that are shot down simply because it would be too long or a little more difficult than you think a map should be.

Not at all. The only limiting factor for maps is the work involved.

[nemchenk]

to make a long discussion short - we made this design decision a long time ago - there will be no mid-game saving (at least not done by this team)

but it's open source - so implement whatever you like and submit a patch to our patch tracker

This seems a huge issue for quite a few people, so I am happy to take a look at implementing this.

The timed- or limited-slot functionality seems too complicated to me -- if people want to cheat, they can copy the save files, or alter their timestamps. I would vote for:

Tickbox at game start, non-editable afterwards. Unticked by default, with a suitable description of why it is a bad idea to select it. Game quits once a save is made in the battlescape, to discourage "save-hunting."

Would this satisfy those users who have time issues?