project-navigation
Personal tools

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - dingoperson

Pages: [1]
1
Discussion / Re: Still hopeful but disappointed
« on: July 17, 2010, 09:38:51 am »
I just rageuninstalled though over:

- Map: Alien Landing - Industrial
- 10+ aliens spread across the map with better armor, better weapons, better accuracy, lots more time units than me
- All placed on roofs and in complex buildings so they can pop out and take out any of my guys with a single shot
- While any of mine need to spend 1-2 units full TUs to take out an enemy
- I can't afford to have even one person die, because they are supposed to advance for 100 missions before they get good and they've only done 50
- And the good old "when any of my units move, reaction fire has them kill any of my other guys single shot on the first round, while I don't have any reactions whatsoever"
- 2 hours wasted.
Sorry, it is far too masochistic for me, I will have to wait until there is an 'easy mode' or autocomplete works :)

2
Discussion / Re: Still hopeful but disappointed
« on: July 15, 2010, 03:13:23 pm »
I know it's a for free game and all, but I just can't get over all the goofy design issues especially with the geoscape interface.


Ahh, come on ;)

Things to think about:

1. People have different thoughts about what an UI should look like. It's slightly arrogant to say that "how UFO1 did it was basically perfection". I feel that as well, but I override it because I know that someone has to sit down and design, and they want a bit more freedom than just to be told "make everything identical to UFO". If you want to play UFO1 then play UFO1.

2. It's free.

3. It will only get better, the nice thing about open source. The game is far enough along that if people drop off someone else should join in.

4. You are free to join and program it yourself ;)

5. And if you can't be bothered to do 4, it's better to phrase it as a request rather than a demand

6. You will get used to it :)

Interfaces can be learnt and gotten used to. Game mechanics should be the biggest deal.

3
Discussion / Re: what's with auto missions?
« on: July 15, 2010, 03:07:44 pm »
Ah, so that's why UFO crashes aren't automissionable..

I found a peculiar inconsistency with regards to whether I got any items or not from the missions. Seemingly at random, usually I would get x/y items, sometimes 0/0 items.

Also, in release 2.3, automissions would either succeed with no dead soldiers, or fail with no dead soldiers (it looked like simply the mission dialogue disappeared, but at the top of the screen it would say 'battle lost'). Supposedly this would be based on a score with a random element, so if the score was good enough you had a chance to win, and if you won you would lose no soldiers, and if the score was poor you had to try again.

The problem for me was that more and more into the game automissions would fail, so I would have to retry and retry 4-5 times. This *could* have been due to my soldiers getting crappier - but I upgraded them with nano armor, the latest weapons and all. I would guess the scoring is somehow off so that either the alien score increases too quickly by far (or it increases forever whilst yours are capped by equipment which tapers off) or your score increases too slowly.

4
Discussion / Re: Say how much you love UFO AI here! :D :D
« on: July 15, 2010, 12:18:54 am »
It's a very good game with a lot of potential, and if I get the job I'm interviewing for tomorrow imma make some contributions : p

5
It is very logical if you think about it for a while ;)

6
Discussion / Re: reaction fire fix?
« on: July 11, 2010, 06:18:19 pm »
1. I have had reaction fire work, BUT ONLY when reserving TUs. The aliens usually have to take a lot of action, but sometimes the troops fire off a single shot. This was with sniper rifles and heavy lasers at range.
2. I would be really happy with reaction fire if it was just like it is except that no TU reservation was made. It takes too many clicks at the moment to micromanage all your troops RF for every round and turn it on and off depending on how far you intend to move in that particular round.
3. Don't see the 'overpowered' argument at all - if it's the same for aliens and humans (barring very bad AI which seems not to be the case), how can it be overpowered? If turtling is the problem, why not add a big randomizer and penalties in there etc?  It just seems stupid that all your troops can see enemies walk all over and nobody fires a single shot.
4. Partly related to 3 - reaction fire was in UFO 1. It seems to have worked very well, reservation wasn't required, everyone was really happy with it. Why not duplicate the same?


7
Tactics / Re: What's your favorite weapon?
« on: July 11, 2010, 06:06:35 pm »
Starting out: 2 Assault rifles, 2 GLs, 2 Snipers, 2 Flamethrowers. Pretty basic.
Mid game: 1 Flamethrower, 2 Heavy Lasers, 2 GLs, 1 Sniper (which really should be a Heavy Laser), 2 Plasma Rifles.

I find that GL is just unsurpassed in the reliability of kills. 3-round airburst for 15 TUs is an almost guaranteed kill at medium ranges until you get Ortnoks in heavy armor. If you feel creative you can even have a good chance at long range kills using timed bounce grenades.

Reliability is #1 on crash landings when you start close to the UFO with all your guys out in the open. GLs can normally take down two aliens when they start close enough with one 15-TU shot. This whilst your other weapons are as inaccurate as shit and need multiple hits. Flamethrower is my next favourite for crash missions because kills are guaranteed. Early in the game the range is even better than sniper rifles, because you can walk quite far and still have 8 TUs left to take down a Taman 5 squares away.

8
Tactics / Re: SAM sites and radar: my eyes and my arms
« on: July 11, 2010, 05:53:44 pm »
My main goal of using SAMs is to avoid base attacks and to down UFOs so I don't have to bother with sending out interceptors.


So for my main base in Europe (covering Europe and parts of Russia, Middle East, Africa) I plonked down a workshop base and a hangar base right next to it, all with a couple of missile bases, and SAMs around them. Nothing ever gets through (until the aliens attacked by land).

I have also found that missile bases are more useful in bases than laser bases, just because of their greater range. Laser range is so small that you usually only ever use it in the case of a direct attack, while with lots of missiles you can often cover a nice area as well.

9
Tactics / Re: Reaction Fire
« on: July 11, 2010, 05:43:57 pm »
Heyhey, fellow reaction fire enthusiasts  ;)
I just joined the forum after playing quite a bit, but I'll plonk down my RF thoughts here instead of in a general thread. I understand it's a hot topic.

Maybe I just didn't find the right button, but I get the impression that to get RF you must activate RF _which also_ reserves the RF number of TUs. So any turn in which you want RF you have to activate this, and when you want to move your full movement you have to deactivate it.

If so, it really boggles the mind. I mean, just needing to 'activate RF' alone seems a bit silly. A bit like:

"Lt. Johnson, this is your commander"
J: "Sir?"
"You know how for the last hour you have been sitting around with your sniper rifle while all your squaddies have been running around  chasing aliens?"
J: "Yes Sir, what about it?"
"Have you seen any aliens?"
J: "Two Sir, over at the field, they were walking from the UFO to inside the farmhouse"
"OK, do you think that next time you see them move, you can shoot your gun at them? I forgot to tell you but that's actually what I want you to do."
J: "Wow, OK Sir, I'll do that"

And then activating/deactivating RF each turn to turn on or off RF reservation is fully redundant in favour of simply using RF _if_ you have the TUs from it. Seriously, do we need that much to be "protected" from spending too many TUs so we don't "accidentally" make ourselves unable to use RF? After a couple of missions I know precisely the TU cost of every firing mode for every weapon.

With the current system, let's say you start with 2 soldiers by your craft, and you want to move them both next to a house one at a time.
- Turn 1 you activate RF with soldier 1, and move soldier 2 next to the house.
- Turn 2 you activate RF with soldier 2 and point him towards the door in case an alien walks out. You deactivate RF with soldier 1, and move him next to house as well.
- Turn 3 you activate RF with soldier 1 as well.
- Turn 4 you deactivate RF with soldier 1 and move him inside the house, and deactivate RF with 2 and do the same.

Compared to:
- Turn 1 you move soldier 2 and let soldier 1 stay behind
- Turn 2 you move soldier 1 as well.
- Turn 3 you click 'next turn'
- Turn 4 you move them both inside

So basically, I would be really happy with the current system IF you didn't have to click the button all the time to reserve/unreserve TUs.

This was the way it was done in UFO 1 and it seemed to work quite well. Is there any reason why the same mechanism can't be adopted? Any feelings about turtling/overpowered etc could be taken care of by introducing variable chances for RF not to happen.

10
Discussion / Some tweaking views from a UFO veteran
« on: July 11, 2010, 05:55:46 am »
I downloaded 2.3 on release and have gotten to the Stingray production stage by now. Before that I played a few missions in an earlier version a year or two ago. I have probably played through X-Com 1 10 times, TFTD 2-3 and Apocalypse 10 or so as well, so I am pretty familiar with the tone of the games.

First I must say a big bravo and thank you for getting it all together. It really is shaping up to be an impressive game and something to spend quite a lot of hours playing.

I do have some feedback on things that could be tweaked to provide IMO a better experience though.

Regarding missions: By a combination of slightly choppy graphics, the lack of a save feature, few time units and quite unpredictable aiming, these are at best really good, but at worst either very predictable and repetitious or really frustrating.

Predictable and repetitious tends to be the case with scout/fighter UFO crash missions, where the aliens always start in the same spots, and you simply retry until your craft lands right next to them, so you wipe out all of them in round 1. Frustrating tends to be the case on the larger maps, especially where aiming is a problem. And because of the high UFO numbers, it is unviable to take on ALL missions, unless you have a LOT of time on your hand.

Aiming is sometimes an issue. The fact that soldiers can be damaged even when you "see" a miss (I would think this may be intentional going from the ufopedia text, or just an in-character fix) means that whenever an alien fires at a group of your soldiers, and perhaps misses all of them, which is really often, you have to go through them all to check exactly who got damaged. It would be far better if "near hit" damage is either disabled, indicated on the person with some blue lighting effect, or the engine tweaked to be accurate in what is displayed.

The accuracy model isn't always great - occasionally I have missed cleanly with all 3 Heavy Laser Pulse Wave shots at 98% accuracy. At the City map I believe it was called (one big tower block) I spent a frustrating two hours because the aliens would fire through several Z-levels of stairs. I also found that I could shoot through the wall in places even though the aiming line went red, and at the top of the stairs, move through the wall.

The frequency of UFOs is probably the largest issue. Comparing with X-Com 1, research progress, # of UFOs appearing etc, I would estimate that on Normal difficulty I get about 2.5-3x the occurence of UFOs. Usually there are 2-3 in the air at the same time, plus two terror missions, plus 2-3 crash sites. In UFO 1 you had occasional periods of high activity making you go "Oh Shit", which was when you knew a base was being built, and you could spend the time with less activity to think through your strategy. In UFO:AI, I have just gotten the Stingray craft, and just had my first Sheevan sighting, with no bloodspider yet, just saw the first Supply ship, and the UFO number has passed _300_. Yes, THREE HUNDRED UFOs and no endgame in sight.

This is a BIG difference in the feel of the game. In X-Com 1 you were pretty certain whether or not you would be able to take down any UFO 90% of the time at any point in the game, and you didn't encounter that many, so you had a pretty good control of the flow of the game. You had a clear choice, to crashland it or attack when it landed. Terror missions were quite rare and a "Big Deal".

In AI, taking down UFOs is a roll of the dice until late in the game, every mission is a terror mission, and UFO landings seem a lot more rare. _Because_ the missions are somewhat frustrating, the _number_ of them is simply too high, which forces you to rely on autocomplete or to just ignore them. At the present I speed through a week at a time, sometimes two weeks, ignoring 30-40 UFOs and 10-12 terror missions, with no ill effects.

Autocomplete by the way has stopped working altogether. For the first quarter of the game I could autocomplete nicely, for the next quarter it took 3-4 tries, and it now never succeeds. If you wanted to expand Autocomplete and make it more in-game, you could make it "Assign to army" instead, and with levels of military capacity as an additional stat for each nation, tied into nation happiness. E.g. if you sell lots of items on the market and UFOs to a nation, their military capacity goes up - so they will happily do missions for you. Doing missions reduces capacity. If capacity is low, they come up against new technology or large numbers of aliens, they are more likely to fail and more likely to take a big happiness hit.

Not to mention annoying gamebreakers (at least for my type of player who saves often and reloads if I suffer a massive setback). The two particular ones are when a UFO appears and shoots down your transport craft (annoying BECAUSE progress is so very slow) and when a base is assaulted apparently by land, as a network of 3 base radars and 1 radar installation was unable to detect the UFO, so I lost the base.

The SAM and base installations are interesting additions, but I feel they detract somewhat from the UFO feeling. To avoid big attacks on my main base I just plonked a hangar base and a production base right next to it, along with 3 sam sites, and tons of anti-air in all of them, making it an impenetrable area often littered with crashed UFOs.

Advancement seems somewhat broken as well for the Speed stat. My soldiers have the same number of TUs they started with, plus 2-3 for those who started the lowest, after having done 40 missions each. This places all of them at about 30-32, up from in some cases 28-29. The aliens have enough TUs to walk several steps and fire off 4 snap shots, placing them at 40+. This just feels far too slow.

I am not sure what is the deal with reaction fire. From what I have read here I get the impression there has been a lot of to and fro, but the UFO way worked perfectly fine - if you have TUs at the end of the turn, you can use them for reaction fire. It is mindbogglingly silly that a soldier will only reaction fire IF he has the reaction fire button ticked, AND that this limits the number of TUs. People will understand and remember TU costs after only a few missions, so the ideal solution is that reaction fire is ALWAYS done based on current turn remaining TUs. If you want reaction fire, don't use all your TUs, is an extremely simple rule that minimises unnecessary mouse clicks.

To add to that, it feels somewhat silly that your experience when you land at a crash site depends 100% if the aliens are facing you or not. If they are facing you they will pepper you with reaction fire - even on the units not moving. Yes, if you move 4 different units, the aliens may "reaction fire" 5-6 times on a 5th unit you haven't moved at all. This is silly. A good compromise might be that aliens always face you but have a higher hurdle / less TUs available on the 1st round.

Game progress isn't excessively slow, but if I had actually played through all 300 missions I would have killed myself by now. I still haven't seen the Needler, Particle weapons or the Bloodspider.  

What I feel are the biggest problems with the game therefore aren't really down to any single cause, rather just a lot of things acting together. Big map terror missions are frustrating _because_ of the aiming issues, choppy graphics, low TUs and the extraordinary frequency of them. Small map crashes are OK, but end up repetitious because of fixed placement, but changing this would cause even more annoyance.

I also feel that UFO1 and Apocalypse were enjoyable to some extent because you could choose how hardcore you wanted the experience. If you used save and load extensively, they actually were very casual games. If you didn't, they were pretty hardcore. AI hasn't really decided what it wants to be.

So my suggestions are:

Geoscape:
* Reduce the frequency of UFOs. Quality, not quantity. I can't think of clear reasons why you can't pick almost any UFO frequency you want with compensating tweaks of funding, costs, item income etc.
* Have UFOs land more often and do terror missions less often, tweaked to give respectively smaller and greater impacts on nation scores.
* Reduce dismantling times. Doing a big UFO mission in itself should best be somewhat frustrating and take quite a bit of effort, but with a very clear gain at the end. The extraordinary dismantling times takes away the "gain at the end" part.
* Make the relation between UFO yard distance and time more fixed and the smaller of "on the same continent" or "moderately close", and reflect this in the game. Optimising players will always seek to minimise production times, so they will stick the yards almost on top of the bases, and SAM sites and radar sites on top of that again, leading to a rather un-UFOy experience. OR, when you place them, indicate the "distance category" for each existing base so you can see how far away you can go before it raises the research time.
* Consider not having SAMs. It's a nice idea but execution is difficult to do well (you end up with a "megastack"). This should be less of a problem with lower UFO frequency.
* Some stats on the craft weapons would be nice. At the moment the stats are given for ammunition only, not showing anything for ammoless weapons. This could be put in the Ufopedia if nowhere else.

Advancement:
* Up Speed stat gain quite a lot, at least to until you reach the middle range. The slow gain and low levels makes the loss of a single soldier and later missions quite frustrating.
* It would be great to have automated training facilities, so there is some minor stat gain across the board for all soldiers over time. Otherwise nobody will ever change their soldier's weapon type, making Accuracy redundant.

Missions:
* Reaction fire: Should be automatic based on remaining TUs. If there is a 'type of shot' button it should indicate which shot type is _preferred_ (and if there isn't enough for that, do a less accurate shot). Ideally, reaction fire should only be allowed against the soldier moving.
* Reaction fire on 1st turn: Have most aliens face the transport craft. Lower alien TUs or up their hurdle.
* Aiming: Percentage displayed should always be the right one. The maps would be better if the alien debris wasn't so bizarrely shaped (strange triangles) that you never know for sure whether a shot is blocked or not.
* Base attacks: Losing a base really sucks. The current "always succeed with autocomplete as long as you have a single soldier" is a stopgap solution - alternatively, make base attacks a regular type mission where you can use either soldiers at the base or fly in a transport craft.


BUt other than that it's really great  ;)

Final edit: I have searched around and see from an old thread that the target speed stat gain is based on an expected average of 100 missions per soldier, for a gain of 10-15. This seems unrealistic. Firstly, it will presume that no soldier is ever allowed to die, because 100 surviving nonretry missions is exceptional. Secondly, assuming 30 minutes per mission (a low to moderate estimate when including retries) it assumes 50 hours spent in missions alone, excluding geoscape, which the average soldier (some more, some less) should reach over his career. This seems way too hardcore.

11
Discussion / Re: general feedback on 2.3
« on: February 19, 2010, 07:04:01 pm »
I just came to check on the forum to see if the game was ready enough to get a good experience out of, and having read this list of complaints I have made my decision  ;)

Pages: [1]