UFO:Alien Invasion
Development => Design => Topic started by: TrashMan on May 28, 2012, 08:44:37 pm
-
With the demo out, I wonder how many of you noticed a few neat ideas that should also be in UFO:AI?
I for one like the tons of recruits, but 10 days of training + funding needed.
A lot of good UI decisions there also, showing weight an TU's for soldiers.
-
Didn't the first xcom game also have a price for recruiting new employees? So you had to "purchase" them. I'm not sure if that makes sense though. Something similar might be good though, like a wait period before the new recruits/employees arrive and can be put to work.
-
Didn't the first xcom game also have a price for recruiting new employees? So you had to "purchase" them. I'm not sure if that makes sense though. Something similar might be good though, like a wait period before the new recruits/employees arrive and can be put to work.
Both planned. Employee will be prepaid for a month, so you (some players) cannot cheat with firing and rehiring them. New recruits will arrive with a delay and fired employee will leave you forever.
-geever
-
sounds great!!!
-
Both planned. Employee will be prepaid for a month, so you (some players) cannot cheat with firing and rehiring them. New recruits will arrive with a delay and fired employee will leave you forever.
We could even get rid of the nation quota and just let you hire as many as you need. *braces for backlash*
-
We could even get rid of the nation quota and just let you hire as many as you need. *braces for backlash*
That would conflict with the randomized soldier stats, though having a quickly-refreshing pool whose size is fixed by nation quota could work.
~J
-
That would conflict with the randomized soldier stats, though having a quickly-refreshing pool whose size is fixed by nation quota could work.
Finally! A man other than me realized the problem with not limited soldiers! However the proposed solution is not good enough! Players would still be able to build up a superhero team too quickly with no training and gaining experience needed, which would make the game less IMHO.
-geever
-
The way it works is you pay money for fresh soldiers. However, they suck and you can't assign them anywhere untill they train (in what is I guess standed orgnaization tactics and weapons) (which costs MORE money and time).
While realisticly there really should be no limit to soldeirs, we know realism gets punted out the door occasionally. Even with a huge number of soldiers, the law of averages means you wont' be getting super-soldiers.
And a large pool should be there.
Waht's the point of tiny soldiers pools? Difficulty? It's false difficulty that makes little sense. You start with 8 soldiers and if you loose a few you're boned. Earth is boned. Because 4 below-average recruits perished and cannot be replaced?
-
Finally! A man other than me realized the problem with not limited soldiers! However the proposed solution is not good enough! Players would still be able to build up a superhero team too quickly with no training and gaining experience needed, which would make the game less IMHO.
IMO you overestimate the power of the supersoldiers. That said, I really think the current supersoldier mechanic is broken and just encourages end-of-month savescumming (and startscumming), so either making them go away entirely or causing them to show up based on some alternate mechanic would be preferable (and also solve much of the problem with no soldier limits).
~J
-
The easiest way is to not have super-soliders at start at all.
All stats are in a specific range.
As time passes, and game moves in more advanced phases, slightly better soldiers become avilable. But their stats are allways smaller than what a soldier kept alive from the start would have.
Fpr better example, at start you get 50 lvl1 soldiers.
3 months in the game, some of your starting soldiers have reacheld lvl8
You start getting recruits wiht lvl5 stats
5 months into the game you best soldier is lvl10
You start getting recruits with are lvl7.
-
I don't see any problem with hiring unlimited soldiers if we remove the random super-soldiers. I don't like either mechanic currently:
1. Limited soldiers means we can't make the battlescape difficult enough so that the player loses soldiers frequently. In X-Com, the guys that managed to survive into late game really were heros, and felt like it, because they had survived when so many others had died. I miss that. Even getting a rookie to Squaddie role was an accomplishment. In UFO:AI it's practically inevitable unless you're really an idiot on the battlefield. After 20 missions in my 2.5 playthrough of UFO:AI on standard I've only lost one soldier. They don't feel like heroes because they're all surviving.
2. Getting random super-soldiers also makes me feel less responsible for them. They're much better than others because the computer made them that way, not because I struggled to keep them alive long enough to improve.
-
I hate it when i lose any soldier - and if i do - i restart the mission.
-
reloading = cheating ;)
Even without doing that, soldiers really hardly ever die. On the most difficult (which isn't hard enough, btw) there's a death here and there but it really doesn't feel "war-like" since losing more than one soldier in a mission is almost a freak accident.
I don't think I've ever lost a mission, and that's saying something. Once I came close when I sent my new second team on a mission equipped with early game guns and armour against a dozen late game ortnoks, bridge map... But even then, there were casualties but still a victory.
-
reloading = cheating ;)
If people want ot cheat, they'll cheat.
you cna't stop epoepl from re-loading at the end of month. you can't stop peopel from re-startign the game if they don't like the initial batch of soldiers (I did it plenty of tiems. I had a LP and I was hunting for soldeirs with specific appearance)
Even without doing that, soldiers really hardly ever die. On the most difficult (which isn't hard enough, btw) there's a death here and there but it really doesn't feel "war-like" since losing more than one soldier in a mission is almost a freak accident.
I don't think I've ever lost a mission, and that's saying something. Once I came close when I sent my new second team on a mission equipped with early game guns and armour against a dozen late game ortnoks, bridge map... But even then, there were casualties but still a victory.
Do you use the (broken) medi-kits?
-
reloading = cheating ;)
Thats ridiculous. Cheating is god mode and stuff like that, not loading a savegame. And anyone who says something else is just wrong.
-
What is and what isn't cheating in an SP game is pretty much irrelevant.
Now that's past, maybe have much larger pool and have the quality of your troops calculated based on your performance?
Maybe adding in alien interest into the equation as well?
-
I hate it when i lose any soldier - and if i do - i restart the mission.
This a play-style, and that's fine. Some people like to hang back and use all long-range weapons. Others like to charge forward. Some want to reverse every negative outcome in the game. Others enjoy the adversity of overcoming mistakes. But the game should not expect or rely on near-perfect performance. With the limit on soldiers that exists, it is pushing the player to play more perfectly from the start of the game, when they would normally play worse.
-
Do you use the (broken) medi-kits?
no.
-
The number of soldiers to start with should be higher. But unlimited? That just would not fit the overall approach of the game. Ammo, grenades, rockets, scientists, funding - everything is limited.
-
I did add a smiley on that "cheating" remark, meaning that you shouldn't take it too seriously...
Anyway, the point of my post was that in my opinion the battles should be tougher, now losing 2 soldiers when winning a mission is like a huge catastrophe. Fighting against a technologically and numerically superior enemy should not be easy.
-
What is and what isn't cheating in an SP game is pretty much irrelevant.
That's not really true. The issue isn't that the act itself is a problem, but that then you have to balance the game for someone—and what's balanced for a player who never reloads, or reloads only for egregious errors (mis-clicks, etc.), is wildly different from what's balanced for a player who reloads every time something goes wrong. This is especially true in the face of some of the current design decisions, like the tiny number of available soldiers, rarity of supersoldiers, expense of dropships, and a whole host of other things that put a huge gigantic difficulty gap between these playstyles.
IMO, there are currently so many of these that the game would really benefit from a deliberate attempt to reduce the number. If you're on the "savescumming is cheating!" side of the argument, you should want this even more—the message a new player will get, when faced with the incredible shortage of recruits and any real chance of soldier death per mission, won't be "oh, I should play more conservatively"—it will be "oh, I guess they expect me to savescum".
~J
-
Thats ridiculous. Cheating is god mode and stuff like that, not loading a savegame. And anyone who says something else is just wrong.
Tell that to the nethack community ;)
-
I did add a smiley on that "cheating" remark, meaning that you shouldn't take it too seriously...
Sorry i didnt mean to sound offensive or offended. Anyway iam the same opinion as H-Hour - its a playstyle. And i also dislike the unlimited recruits idea. ;)
-
The more rearer the soldiers are, the more people will save-scum to avoid loosing them.
This is a war on a global scale. Phalanx will be able to pick from the entire worlds populations. Ergo, it makes no sense that your soldiers are irreplacable.
If you want the player to fear the loss of soldiers, you have to ask yourself WHAT is hte reason for that fear?
People that roleplay will get attached ot their solider and will dread to lose them regardless of stats.
Power gamers will dread to loose elites that are hard to replace because of stats.
Ultimatively you can't force poeple to care, and you can't force them to play the game in one specfic way.
-
That's not really true. The issue isn't that the act itself is a problem, but that then you have to balance the game for someone—and what's balanced for a player who never reloads, or reloads only for egregious errors (mis-clicks, etc.), is wildly different from what's balanced for a player who reloads every time something goes wrong. This is especially true in the face of some of the current design decisions, like the tiny number of available soldiers, rarity of supersoldiers, expense of dropships, and a whole host of other things that put a huge gigantic difficulty gap between these playstyles.
IMO, there are currently so many of these that the game would really benefit from a deliberate attempt to reduce the number. If you're on the "savescumming is cheating!" side of the argument, you should want this even more—the message a new player will get, when faced with the incredible shortage of recruits and any real chance of soldier death per mission, won't be "oh, I should play more conservatively"—it will be "oh, I guess they expect me to savescum".
~J
+!
I guess it might be possible to appease all parties with what is already there - different difficulty levels. Toughest level should be made *really* tough so it would be difficult for anyone, save/loader or otherwise.
-
I don't know if this is in xenonauts, but I'd like to be able to see the soldier stats more concisely when I'm scrolling through the list of potential hires. Right now I have something ridiculous like 100 potential hires, and i have to click on each one to compare them. I
f there could be a minituarized bar next to their name - like a really small bar chart, this might help.
or perhaps a stat average, or something that flags the exceptional new hires from the mediocre to the crummy ones.
Or maybe if they get sorted based on average ability, then all the really good ones float to the front of the list?
-
can the nations provide a handful of elite soldiers a month, depending on their happiness, stats average n competant as is presently, then in the shop you can just stock up on cannon fodder, unlimited. These stats would be pathetic! Lol. This would preserve the need to look after your good soldiers for a dream team, maybe even with a mighty duck!
-
would that require calling one more year?
-
I suspect that this is why a lot of games have the Iron Man mode. Where, like AI now, it disallows mission saves, and only allows them int he 'overworld'/'geoscape'.
I like the small Soldier pools. As long as I don't end up stuck with truly abysmal soldiers.
-
I don't have a great deal of trouble, perhaps on the Superhuman mode the Aliens provide a challenge and I have to put an effort in to beat them. Generally however, I play on a normal mode, with lazy tactics 50% of the time, and no surprise my soldiers are all maimed and bedraggled come the end of the month. If I wait the month out most will heal and I will have some new ones, simples. I am not entirely sure why I would request conscripts to make up numbers, I had an issue building a base the other day and only had 2 or 3 soldiers on guard when the aliens found it. Again challenging, but actually a little irritating. If A base was supplied with some basic soldiers on guard when it was built I would have had a better chance, If the soldiers had poor stats I could've put a defeat to being out played and have enjoyed the battle. In the original XCOM - UFO you had infinite soldiers but it didn't deter from looking after your good ones, However alien numbers were greater on the maps also.
-
A catchy thing from Xenonauts - alien weapons are made for alien hands, and thus the ergonomy for humans is all wrong. You soldier can pick the weapon up and use it, but has a accuracy penalty (and it also cannot be reloaded, but that's another matter)
Very realistic and gives producton even more weight, as human-compatable versions have to be produced.
All alien weapons are inherently unfit for humans to use.
-
A couple of us have considered something similar, but to do it properly we would need to change our alien and weapon models. As it is, the Taman, Shevaar and Ortnok all have very humanoid hand/arm/eye relationships, and all of the models for alien weapons are pretty similar to human weapons.
Calling it "uncomfortable" for human use would look like a cheap hack unless it was backed up by the appearance of the aliens and weapons in-game.
-
A catchy thing from Xenonauts - alien weapons are made for alien hands, and thus the ergonomy for humans is all wrong. You soldier can pick the weapon up and use it, but has a accuracy penalty (and it also cannot be reloaded, but that's another matter)
Very realistic and gives producton even more weight, as human-compatable versions have to be produced.
All alien weapons are inherently unfit for humans to use.
A system like this has even more advantages. Right now, the aliens are outgunned by humans, because humans can always use the alien weaponry and additional weapons that aliens don´t have. With the Grenade Launcher and all the Sniper weapons humans have a clear advantage on the battlescape. When playing, one never can get the impression of the aliens having a superiour technology. Even worse, after some days of research we cannot only use the alien weapons, but also reproduce them.
And I don´t think we need other models. They are not detailed enough to prove they have to fit human needs.
-
A system like this has even more advantages. Right now, the aliens are outgunned by humans, because humans can always use the alien weaponry and additional weapons that aliens don´t have. With the Grenade Launcher and all the Sniper weapons humans have a clear advantage on the battlescape. When playing, one never can get the impression of the aliens having a superiour technology. Even worse, after some days of research we cannot only use the alien weapons, but also reproduce them.
+1
And I don´t think we need other models. They are not detailed enough to prove they have to fit human needs.
"Hell yeah i finally can R&D a cool new weapon for my phalanx soldiers! Cant wait to see the new thing!!! Wow its ... its ... wait ... Its the same model?" *uninstalls game* :D
-
A couple of us have considered something similar, but to do it properly we would need to change our alien and weapon models. As it is, the Taman, Shevaar and Ortnok all have very humanoid hand/arm/eye relationships, and all of the models for alien weapons are pretty similar to human weapons.
Calling it "uncomfortable" for human use would look like a cheap hack unless it was backed up by the appearance of the aliens and weapons in-game.
Not really. "Similar" is not the same as "identical". Even slight differences can have a hefty impact.
Hell, even human-designed chairs for humans can be so different that one kills my back and the other is comfty and cozy.
-
Sorry to butt in, but I always thought that maybe an inteligent enemy such as an alien species that uses anti matter engines would have forseen humans using their weapons, and thus devise a fingerprint or dna check system to apply on the wielder.
After all they already use a device such as this on the Plasma G.
I concur that alien weapons used by humans should incurr in heavy accuracity problems, massive reloading times and that an adaptation for humans should be made available through research. This should make gameplay a lot harder, granted, but I would consider this to be a minor setback in the overall campaign progress once the hole story is developed.
-
Gameplay is pretty much piss easy as it is. If you ignore the fact that the game won't spawn a single UFO in sight of your base untill half the planet surrenders.
Having to build your own versions of their guns wouldn't actually be all that bad.
Sorry to butt in, but I always thought that maybe an inteligent enemy such as an alien species that uses anti matter engines would have forseen humans using their weapons, and thus devise a fingerprint or dna check system to apply on the wielder.
Systems that could probably be broken after the device is fully examined by the professional staff in the lab.
-
Gameplay is pretty much piss easy as it is. If you ignore the fact that the game won't spawn a single UFO in sight of your base untill half the planet surrenders.
Having to build your own versions of their guns wouldn't actually be all that bad.
Systems that could probably be broken after the device is fully examined by the professional staff in the lab.
Yes, but that doesn't necesarily make the device useless or unnecesary at all, in fact aliens seem to have the tecnology prowess and manufacturing power to make masive deployments of such a countermeasure without even sweating.
-
You coudl use the same model for the human-re-designed alein weapons...or you could maek new ones.
IIRC; we have some extra models already and I can make more if necessary.
-
+!
I guess it might be possible to appease all parties with what is already there - different difficulty levels. Toughest level should be made *really* tough so it would be difficult for anyone, save/loader or otherwise.
+! indeed!
On the toughest level I would really *expect* to return from missions with an incomplete squad more often than not. (With the 8-soldier squad limit (of version 2.4 and before) being slightly raised, the immediate tactical penalty for losing a few soldiers should become bearable.) However, the pool of available recruits should then be large enough to compensate your losses, though definitely without being anywhere near unlimited. For example, arrange the pool as follows:
- A slightly larger pool of candidate recruits to start the game with. At the moment of hiring, wages up till the end of the month (proportionally) must be paid in advance, plus a one-time hiring bonus for each newly recruited soldier, to somewhat compensate the families they leave behind :'(.
- Average stats of recruits in the pool should vary. Let's assume we have the list of candidates sorted by their average stats, ranging uniformly from pathetic to reasonable. Then the total number of acceptable candidates will be proportional to the pool size. With the pool becoming smaller, you can either take sissies ;) or hold out till next month 8).
- The base pool size should be reduced as a penalty for soldiers lost in battle during the previous month.
- Make the number of available (new) recruits at the beginning of each new month proportional with the hiring bonus you will grant each newly recruited soldier, the next month. The player should be able to adapt the hiring bonus (in the financial statistics screen and/or the recruitment screen).
djivi
-
As it is, the Taman, Shevaar and Ortnok all have very humanoid hand/arm/eye relationships, and all of the models for alien weapons are pretty similar to human weapons.
Calling it "uncomfortable" for human use would look like a cheap hack unless it was backed up by the appearance of the aliens and weapons in-game.
I agree and would recommend making plans to change these things in the future. The existing alien weapon models can be used as the human-made, human-ergonomic versions that you have to research for your squads. Then new, non-anthropomorphic aliens and xeno-ergonomic weapons can be used for the enemy.
The existing models are ancient and will best be replaced at some point anyway, so at that point there's an opportunity to give a truly alien look to both the weapons and the alien creatures themselves. You could even match the ergonomics of a particular weapon with the alien species that typically uses it. A creature with four arms featuring a radial array of a dozen digits would use a very different grip from one with eight flexible tentacles or a human.
-
If soldiers got a large jump in statistics after each of their first few missions having a larger pool of recruits would be ok. In this way all new recruits would be realativly weak and any surviving soldiers would be valuable for the player. If the new recruits were more likely to die then loosing a few soldiers each battle would be acceptable to most players. Let the new guys start further out from the dropship (distance from evacuation zone based on mind) or let the aliens preferentialy target them.
I think it would make the game more fun if the experienced soldiers survived better. Having some cannon fodder is a good thing. In base defence missions some security guards - whose day job is checking IDs - would be fun!
-
if recruits cost money, then that is more than enough limit.
there is no way to make more money than the game gives you.
and that money is needed for building bases.
if money needs adjustments, then the selling prices of alien weapons could be adjusted.
so, why exactly should the soldier pool be limited?
to keep new players from spending too much money on soldiers?
there is also a possibility to increase soldier prices the more you recruit.
lots of dead soldiers is good, as in my opinion, humans should be swarming the tech-superior aliens rather than human butchering squad killing all aliens and trying not to get injured at all in the process.
the best solution to new recruits would be (this is probably a surprise) time unit costs of shooting depending on the number of shots of the firemode.
so sniper rifle would only have one firemode: snap shot, which would take, say, 10 time units.
then the soldier could assign time units for aiming (efficiency of aiming would depend on skill, and capped by weapon accuracy).
so, how would this alleviate the problems with new recruits?
1) new recruits can compete with veterans in number of shots.
2) new recruits go where less aiming is needed, i.e. close combat, but veterans will be used for shots that need more aiming.
-
Dunno, In all tactical and squad based games I played (many... many.... MANY GAMES), I stick to 6 person in squad.
Tactical games with possibility to make more, I always ignored that and anyway made team with 6 persons. I don't know why, as well there's no significant difference, but 6 is great for me. So, no problem with current layout.
'bout xenonauts - I saw it - well, it's good. But why I want to help UFOAI project? Actually, I rly don't know. I love x-com, as well I can't see any big difference from all games (except shooter x-com... OMG, It's so wrong, but let's not speak bout that abomination), and I think it's great, as it's x-com core.
Still, there's something into UFOAI, something: mysterious. Xenonauts is nice, but UFOAI - Is great. Let's hope we'll make it DA BEST! XD
-
When maps are cluttered and large, and when AI is smart enough to try and flank you, I am happy to have 8, even 10-12 troopers.
Back to old X-COM, a 8-soldiers squad meant two 3-soldiers teams to explore and secure, and a 2-soldiers team long-range support in relative safety. An alien base with 6 guys only ? One guy per corridor then... ;)
With UGVs, it was two 4-soldiers-plus-UGV teams, so basically the same as two of your favorite 6-soldiers teams, so that you had two such teams, which was handy to control large maps.
-
Only thing I want to see from xenonauts is the directional cover system that game has
-
We have organic directional cover. If you want to have cover in one direction, place your unit behind cover in that direction. ;)
-
Employee will be prepaid for a month, so you (some players) cannot cheat with firing and rehiring them. New recruits will arrive with a delay and fired employee will leave you forever.
Good, I was going to make a comment on the stiffing your employees by giving them the last day of each month off (or the last few seconds if you're really a jerk). :)
Delay is also good, I have a habit of teleporting defenders in when a Harvester is bearing down on one of my nearly empty bases. Buying equipment needs a delay on the same grounds. It's one thing to buy up a bunch of ammo when you want it, but you can abuse the lack of delay to teleport any item for 10% of it's price. (If it HAS a price, don't try this with Plasma Ammo yet, you won't get it back)
As for the alien hands thing... I think the biggest argument in favor of the current simple system is that not only are the alien's hands not SO different from humans ones... they are about that different from each other's. Any weapons made for general use (and they all seem to be) would have to be designed with fairly flexible and forgiving holds, triggers and controls.
Of course such a system may still have a role... I want to play the Hovers and Bloodspiders in MP but they were never really intended to be using the same weapons so it's very odd as is. I'm assuming it's just a placeholder now.