General > Discussion
Feedback and impressions after 1 campaign
BTAxis:
I think you make a compelling point with your comment about predictability. That's definitely a weakness in a time-only approach. It is supposed to be compensated by a certain expected duration for the player to research all the good equipment, and I suspect that's not really working out for most players. It's hardly easy to get an arbitrarily set difficulty scale right, which is where the difficulty setting comes in (the aliens escalate faster on higher settings). Maybe it's possible to find values that keep the campaign interesting to the player despite being predictable, or maybe some more dynamism will work better. I'm not sure.
Solver:
By the way, research is exactly a good example of where a time-only approach leads to discovering the "one best choice" strategy. If I know when aliens are going to bring out those big guns, I can figure out exactly how many labs and scientists I need to keep up. Then there is no arms race, if I am certain I can get Plasma Rifles/Heavy Lasers (preference based) in time for the medium armour wielding aliens. A less predictable campaign has a much higher chance of giving me that ohshit moment when I find myself outgunned.
I'd also say it's important consider independently the two factors of alien escalation, that is quantity and quality. Lots of aliens with crappy equipment can be tough, fewer aliens with great equipment can be tough. Currently, the escalation happens at a similar rate for both. You get more aliens and they're better equipped. And in the late-game, they wield the best equipment and come way too often. Maybe some circumstances should only lead to an escalation of alien equipment without greater numbers.
Of course the issue is difficult, you have to not only find a curve for escalation that would be okay, you also have to maintain some pacing balance between the number of missions and the strategic-level events like production and research. Even a production time of 2 days will feel extremely slow if you're doing 7-8 missions per day.
homunculus:
As far as I remember, the decision to go time-based as opposed to player performance based came from considering the opposite to what is proposed here.
It was like this: if aliens see players wielding plasma weapons, the aliens upgrade to particle beam.
So, the player might delay researching plasma weapons so that the aliens would not upgrade to particle beam.
In this case, however, if the player does not act efficiently enough, the result could be a clear defeat.
Maybe every UFO that the player does not shoot down, would leave and return after some period of time, so the number of missions would be under quite good control.
Bashar:
Hello. I should admit right up front that I haven't yet played UFO:AI for myself. That's because while I thought X-Com was one of the best games of the 90s, I didn't find it as enjoyable as I had hoped. It was very unforgiving and put more emphasis on tactical combat over strategic planning than I would have liked. So when I read this thread and learned that the ratio of tactical battles to strategic window planning is perhaps even higher in UFO:AI, I decided to wait and see how things turn out in the next version.
But reading what people have been saying here on the forum, I thought I would throw in a few ideas of my own from the perspective of someone who is more interested in strategic rather than tactical gaming. I looked through the list of proposals on the books and it doesn't look like any of these were addressed there so perhaps a new perspective will be welcome. And sorry for writing a really long post. I write big. That's just the way I am. Sorry about that. I did try to divide the post into sections.
---
In terms of pacing, which seems to have become the focus of this topic, it seems to be one of the biggest issues brought up here has to do with technology progression. The progression of alien technology in particular. Judging from what Solver (I like that name, BTW) has said, it sounds like there's a linear progression of tech, from terrestrial firearms to lasers to plasma to particle beams.
While this vertical line of research makes sense in that it follows the X-Com model, I suggest that you could make the game more dynamic by putting greater emphasis lateral research. Instead of being a race to get from point A to point B, the player would be encouraged to think strategically and weigh the value of techs based on their own, personal long term strategy and style of play rather than intrinsic values determined by the developers.
In short, give the player a choice between upgrading existing equipment and researching new ones. Both options have benefits and drawbacks. Upgrading an existing tech might be quicker and cheaper and allow the player to field more effective unit in short order; however, each research point spent on upgrading an existing technology means it's going to take just that much longer to get the fancy new toys. It's a matter of opportunity cost.
But this leads us to the question of equipment diversity. Is there really much of a choice between researching an advanced laser rifle when a basic plasma rifle is functionally the same? Solver mentions that laser rifles are more accurate than plasmas but on a whole it sounds like once you research one technology level, it obsolesces the previous one. What I'm saying is that optimally each technology "tier" (e.g. laser, plasma) would have its own unique characteristics in the same ways different weapon types within that sphere (e.g. rifles, pistols). Instead of tiers replacing one another, they could be used to complement eachother. This would transform the tech tree from a race to advance to the next rung on the latter to a platter where the player has to strategically determine what is the best choice to make given the circumstances of the situation at hand and knowing that whatever choice he makes, it will come at the exclusion of others.
I'm not saying that there shouldn't be any linear progression at all. It makes sense that a plasma gun might be on a whole "better" than a laser gun, and that a particle gun might be on a whole "better" than a plasma gun. If you want to research the big fancy guns, though, you're going to have to pay for it. What I mean to encourage is that be some drawback to correspond with that intrinsic superiority of more advanced weapons so that each tier's utility has as much to do with the circumstance in which they're used as it does with the value of their stats. For example, one weapon might have a substantially better magazine capacity than another, that would make it ideal for battles you expect to be time consuming, where logistics may ultimately play a larger part in determining victory than firepower.
To an extent this seems to already exist as per Solver's anecdote regarding the equipping of his grunts with intrinsically accurate laser rifles while arming his snipers with the less accurate but damage intensive plasma rifles. What I'm suggesting is that you go all-in with this trend and establish more of a paper-rock-scissors model where the particle weapon might be superior in most cases, but not all, while the lower tiered laser weapon might not have much to show for itself but is still effective in particular circumstances even at the end of the game.
On a macro scale, this would allow the AI to diversity its tactics. It won't be as much a matter of transitioning from one tech tier to the next so much as choosing specific weapons for specific purposes. This would open up the opportunity to create different AI "personalities" which would eliminate, or at least reduce the level of predictability that Solver is talking about. "Reactive" gameplay shouldn't just be a matter of the AI responding to the player, but should also be about the player responding to the AI. If the AI behaves the same in every game, the player will soon pick up on the "one best choice" to counter them. If the AI diversifies its activities, then the player must analyze his opponents actions, deduce his motives, and plan accordingly to counter them.
For example, if the player sees his opponent introducing plasma weapons earlier than expected, before lasers, then the player will adapt his strategy to find a means of countering those weapons. If the equipment is sufficiently diversified as suggested above, then plasma weapons will have a weakness that the player can exploit. In turn, the player's strategy will have its own weakness which his opponent will try to exploit, and so on and so forth to create a dynamic gaming experience. Success becomes not so much a matter of who is the first one to get the big, shiny weapons but who is better able to adapt to their circumstances.
---
UFO:AI's research tree seems to be focused researching individual applications rather than theory. Toward the idea of enhancing lateral research, I would suggest creating more research topics that would separate theory from application. Let me explain. Let's take for example a plasma pistol. The reason we don't have plasma pistols today is because we haven't figured out how to effectively weaponize plasma. It's not because we haven't figured out the use and manufacture of pistols. We understand pistols, what their function is, how they work. It's the plasma part that stumps us. Therefore it's going to take us much, much longer to figure out how to effectively weaponize plasma than it will to apply that knowledge to pistol form after we've figured out the theory.
The way the tech tree appears to be set up now, research on all the different types of alien weapons within a technology tier is treated as independent of one another. If you've researched the plasma pistol, that doesn't make researching the plasma rifle any easier. What I'm suggesting is having all initial research into a weapon tier first focus on theory. This theory stage of research is very intensive on captured alien technology; however, it doesn't distinguish between types of that technology, all equipment within that tier can contribute. Once the theory is discovered, then the player can focus on individual applications. The applications are much less intensive in terms of both research and captured alien equipment; however, only specific pieces of equipment can contribute (e.g. pistols to pistols, rifles to rifles).
In addition and as an alternative to researching theory, the player could also have the choice of researching the means to refit captured alien weapons for use in the field. Alien weapons weren't designed for human physiology and thus not may not be immediately useful; however, it's relatively inexpensive to refit captured weapons as you don't have to understand how the technology works, just take advantage of its functionality. Of course, this means that you would be unable to manufacture your own such weapons and be dependent on the supply that you can scavenge, but it creates a strategic quandary that the player must figure out on their own. Basically it comes down to one of three options:
A) Invest the alien weapon toward researching theory, which will eventually allow much greater flexibility in manufacturing and utilizing that technology.
B) Sell it on the open market for cash which can be invested on other, different technologies and equipment.
C) Refit the weapon for field use.
Whichever of those options the player chooses will be determined by their preferences as an individual and the circumstances they face in the game. It's not a matter of choosing one "best" strategy, though some strategies may have greater overall viability than others, but of adapting to circumstances. Obviously it would be great to get the research boost, the cash, and to be able to field the weapon all at once, but the player must instead determine which option will best serve his immediate interests. That's strategic decision making at work.
---
A final point on technology is that the tech tree seems to focus on the study of alien technology. At first blush this would make sense; however, it seems to neglect fields where alien technology can advance human understanding of its existing technologies. For instance, reverse engineering a UFO doesn't just improve your knowledge of that UFO but also allows you to advance the development of human engineered detection systems. After all, once you have a good idea of what you're looking for, it's a lot easier to find it. For another example, research into alien alloys and propellant might open up the opportunity to produce advanced projectile ammunition that could improve the late-game utility of terrestrial firearms that might otherwise be discarded.
This is technology that is distinctly oriented toward humanity but could be advanced with the introduction of knowledge gleaned from researching alien technology. Therefore I see an opportunity to develop a whole branch of the tech tree that is human/player oriented but rationalized in the fiction of the game as being derived from the research he is performing on the aliens.
On a whole what I would like to see is a technology tree that enables the player to pursue diverse strategies rather than focus on particular game-winning lines of research. The key here is diversity, establishing a set of complementary rather than conflicting or exclusive technologies. As to -how- to go about doing that, I can't rightly say. I haven't taken a look at the code yet. But I'm throwing the idea out here to see if it's a direction the developers and community are interested in pursuing.
---
Next topic I want to touch on is the game's market economy. It's been mentioned that cash is very dear at the start of the game but plentiful toward late game. At first blush the obvious solution would be to make the market value for alien technology very high at the start of the game but gradually diminish as more and more pieces are introduced to the world market. Look at it in terms of an auction. You put your first alien blaster for sale on the market, the only one of its kind available on Earth, and you're going to get the highest bidder. Put another alien blaster on the market, though, and it's no longer one of a kind. The first bidder isn't really interested since he already has one so the second blaster goes to the next highest bidder at a reduced price, so on and so forth until alien blasters are commonplace and don't fetch much more than a terrestrial weapon.
This would change the dynamic of the economy as the player progresses in the game. At the start, he can get by supplementing his income by selling off the occasional captured item; however, over time the player will be required to provide more and more quantities in order to make the same aggregate income. That will force the player to either focus on capturing and recovering more exotic technology, which means the player will have to take care to use less destructive means when combating the aliens, or focus on manufacture which, pursuant to the section I wrote above, would have to be the result of a dedicated strategy and research plan. And, of course, there's always the alternative of sucking up to nations for grant money.
How the player seeks its money is up to them, again I don't think there should be any "one best choice" but a combination of strategies based on an overall plan and the circumstances of the moment. With declining prices based on the quantity of goods that have been introduced to the market, though, you establish a system that would inject more capital in the beginning of the game without inflation rending it worthless at the end.
Additionally, you could make nations more reluctant to fund grants if Phalanx has a lot of money on its hands. If the player is regarded as particularly wealthy, nations might not see the point in continuing funding when they can put that money toward internal budgetary concerns.
---
Finally I wanted to say a few words on auto-calculated battles. For my part, I think these are a good thing because when I started playing X-Com I was excited to invest myself in the strategic game. I enjoyed the tactical game, too, and really you couldn't have a game based on X-Com that didn't emphasize turn-based tactical combat; however, for me it got to be tedious having to counter every single terror mission or raid every single downed UFO. Base missions, either attacking the aliens or defending your own, those I could always understand as being pivotal moments worthy of my attention; however, the other missions tended to become mundane and tedious after you accomplished the first couple ones. The terror missions in particular were annoying because you couldn't skip them lest you get your funding cut, lose support, and eventually lose the game, and a successful terror mission always left me feeling more like I was treading water than having had accomplished some achievement.
Based on what I've read on here, though, I infer that auto-calculated battles are regarded as a kind of exploit. Or that the mentality is that since a player has chosen not to invest the time in playing out a battle that they shouldn't be rewarded or penalized accordingly for the outcome as if they had. I can kind of understand this since any X-Com inspired game -ought- to have tactical combat as its foremost priority; however, I don't believe that means players should be denied options to place greater emphasis on the strategic game. X-Com didn't have the balance I was looking for and it sounds like UFO:AI even more strongly favours tactical combat.
So what I would suggest is integrating auto-calculated battles as part of the game. The means by which I would suggest doing that is by introducing a system of NPC leaders or "officers". I don't know if UFO:AI has the same system but I recall the agents in X-Com achieving a higher military grade as they earned experience and the population of your agents grew. When agents reached commissioned officer status, there wasn't a whole lot of use for them anymore since having one die in combat would incur a greater morale penalty than the bonus they imparted while they were alive.
So I'd like to see the opportunity to take these officers and assign them to lead missions on the player's behalf. Each officer would have a set of unseen statistics that would nudge mission outcomes in terms of success, captured equipment, captured aliens, civilian losses, and Phalanx casualties. This way each NPC officer would have his own "leadership style" that would determine how best they could be used. In some cases an NPC officer might prove superior to the player, in other cases weaker. Some might be suited to some missions while fail at others. You might have an officer who is very effective at operations but have a tendency to get the agents under his command killed where another officer might be inclined to surrender the field to the aliens but bring his agents home safely and some fancy new alien tech to boot.
Because these statistics are unseen, the player understands that he is taking a risk by using an NPC leader; however, over time, the player will be able to judge from the officer's record what his strengths and weaknesses are and come to employ him optimally... if he wants. If the player wants to focus on tactical combat, more power to him, this suggestion regarding using officers to auto-calc battles is a means of de-emphasizing tactical combat for players who are less interested in it while simultaneously making the strategic game more engaging.
Employing officers would also come at a cost. First, because you're drawing your officer from your ranks of agents, that's one elite agent that you're not using in a combat capacity. Additionally there could be a cool-down period before an officer can be used to lead a subsequent battle (darned paperwork!). This will force the player to consider whether they want to use an officer right away or hold them back in reserve with the expectation that another, more appropriate mission will crop up soon after. That's just more strategic decision making at hand.
Moreover, you could have it so that the player is required to invest in "command post" base modules. This would mean that officers would come at the expense of using that base slot for something else, such as a research lab or warehouse, while also potentially limiting the area you can deploy that officer to battles to within a certain radius of their base. You might have another Caesar on your hands, but he can only be in one place at a time. The player would have to determine where his officers would be most effectively utilized and why. If the player wants to focus on playing out the important tactical battles, he might assign an officer to a backwater base to mop up skirmishes. Alternatively, if the player prefers leaving the large battles to his officers, he can assign them to bases that see plenty of action. It's an in-game means of allowing the player to tailor the game experience to suit their preference.
---
Alright, in closing, I want to say that pretty much every thing I've said has been more with regard to X-Com than with UFO:AI. Some of the above might not really apply, in which case, I hope you'll forgive me.
I think it's great that this project is in development and that it has advanced so far. Games like this, labours of love rather than profit-driven enterprises, are really an inspiration. Thanks for the opportunity to get my gears spinning and write this post.
Hertzila:
Since your post is long, I'll be putting up responses as edits to this post as I get them.
Your idea that weapons are not in actual tiers and are more or less just differing ones is basically correct but requires a lot of balancing to get to that point. For example, terrestial lasers are just about perfect as all-arounders (especially rifles), more than normal bullet weapons (assault rifles) as you might suspect. Decent damage, decent clip capacity and excellent accuracy even with bad stats makes them good for grunts and short-to-long assaulters. Plasma rifles, the basic alien weapons, OTOH, have so crappy accuracy that even in their short effective range they don't get much hits, making them rarely used. It's the same for bolter rifle (rail gun, another pure terrestial weapon). Its basic idea is that of a crossed medium range sniper and assault rifle but it lacks the crucial accuracy of snipers, so it usually lacks users.
After that things start to get a bit more complicated. Terrestial stun laser mixes things up a bit along with CHOKE grenades (stun gas). Coilguns are a snipers dream come true but are bloody expensive for upkeep and backpack space. Alien particle weapons are more or less upgraded lasers but are even more expensive to upkeep, what with it being impossible to manufacture ammo for them. During all this time, you also get upgraded plasma grenades both for throwing and launcher as well as (supposed to get, waiting for implementation IIRC) a new antimatter rocket for that launcher. Aaaand most will still stay with lasers. They're just that all-around.
Also, regarding the rock-paper-scissors, armour values should also have a part at this, with some armour doing an excellent job with one type while some other with another type, as well as alien species-specific resistances. So, the idea is there, it just requires a lot of work to get the best of it.
---
It makes sense that alien weapons and equipment are researched seperately, as that part is more or less exactly what you suggested about retrofitting and figuring out what does what in the stuff. In addition, right now it also works as an reverse-engineering project. Regarding this, it might make more sense if the similar weapon types are grouped under one reverse-engineering project that opens up once at least one weapon is 'retrofitted' that will allow manufacturing of the weapon types in question (after they're studied, of course).
Particle weapons are kind-of included in this already, as the seperate project regarding their ammo supply creates this sort of gap in their usage.
---
All of the research you propose here (detection, alloys, propellant) is included in the game. After dismantling/disassembling a UFO, the parts in question open up for research and confer the bonuses you proposed (their detection method improves radar range, propellant allows for human-build antimatter craft and the alloys just open up a lot of nifty possibilities).
---
Not much to say here, but just in case I want to point out that you can not make money in UFO:AI through manufacturing. Selling stuff will either always come with a loss or it was hauled off from the field, in which case there's no (monetary) cost to it.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version