UFO:Alien Invasion
General => Discussion => Topic started by: A Papa on April 14, 2007, 10:52:25 am
-
Hi All! :)
The game is great!!!! :)
But, i have one question ! :)
Can i save in combat???
If the answer is no,why???
Thank you for all your trouble ! :)
-
You can't save in combat.
see http://ufoai.ninex.info/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=937&highlight=save
I agree with mattn.
IMO: if you know you can save and load all the time, it encourages cheatiness and takes some of the fear away.
-
I agree with that as well. I know too many people who had the patience to just go through move after move, turn after turn, every time they were in a combat situation in the Xcom games. It makes you use your beain a little more if there are consequences.
-
I understand the argument about not having a save function during combat, but (and it's a big but, no pun intended) if we play on a large map that takes an hour to complete it's a major turn-off if your computer decides to crash or there is a power black-out.
After all, if you don't want to save during combat just don't use the function. :wink:
-
Hmmm...having been lucky enough so far to avoid that, I really hadn't considered it. Maybe some sort of 'limited' saves ability would be implementable or something? Or even just some kind of autosave feature, though that's probably a colossal pain in the ass to implement.
-
Greetings All,
Two thoughts. 1st, honestly, compared to TFTD, the levels here are puny.
2nd, twice this past weekend I wished I could save the game during combat. Why? Because the first time I had to let the spousal unit use the puter and the 2nd time was because I had to leave. Both times were in the middle of combat. I had to quit the game instead and since I only save when I quit, both times the progress I had made was lost.
-
Well... I think number of slots to save game in the middle of the battle can be function of level:
Very easy -- unlimited number of saves.
Easy -- 3
Standard -- 1 (use it wisely! ;) )
Hard -- 0
Very Hard -- 0.
I think this scheme is fair enough.
-
Greetings All,
Two thoughts. 1st, honestly, compared to TFTD, the levels here are puny.
2nd, twice this past weekend I wished I could save the game during combat. Why? Because the first time I had to let the spousal unit use the puter and the 2nd time was because I had to leave. Both times were in the middle of combat. I had to quit the game instead and since I only save when I quit, both times the progress I had made was lost.
the other difference from TFTD...none of those near-indestructible lobstermen. I HATED seeing those guys early on in a game.
-
After all, if you don't want to save during combat just don't use the function.
Exactly. This was one of my main points when this debate first came up. There are concerns that a save feature will diminish the atmosphere and tension, and thus the funfactor/enjoyment. In reality though, this is a fallacious argument in that
A: the absence of a combat/battlescape save option actually *detracts* from the enjoyment of those who do wish to use it, which I can only presume to be most people, given that few appreciate having tens of minutes of their time wasted by some lucky shot or freak incident, or RL obligations.
and
B: Those gluttons for punishment who do want to iron man their way through tactical encounters can do so anyways.
Obviously the "preservation of atmosphere" fails to merit imposing what is likely a widely unpopular iron man experience, when in all practicality what this really accomplishes is frustration and annoyance on behalf of the player rather than the intended aim.
-
Hi all! Just joined this forum and have just downloaded the game and tried for a short period of time.
Anyway I want to give you guys my thoughts about the option to save during combat.
I agree that you should not be able to save during Combat to easily reload it and thus taking away the terror/punishment if you make a bad move.
Hower I do understand the frustration when playing a map and you suddenly have to quit the game for one or other reason.
I do have a suggestion that would solve the above situation and still keep the terror/punishment feeling. Do allow to save the game and then automatically quit back to desktop. I also suggest that savegames during combat cannot be reloaded until 5 minutes after they have been saved.
Now, this gives me the option to save the game, and go away if I need to do so. Also this effectively retain the terror/punishment of your actions since this save option would be useless to use every turn. You would be thrown out to deskop everytime and even if you reload the game you wont be able to load that savegame until five minutes have passed.
So, what do you guys think about this idea?
-
I do have a suggestion that would solve the above situation and still keep the terror/punishment feeling. Do allow to save the game and then automatically quit back to desktop. I also suggest that savegames during combat cannot be reloaded until 5 minutes after they have been saved.
Honestly, that wait 5 minutes before you can reload is on the anal side. If someone wants to munch out and essentially cheat, let them. It would be no different if they got their hands on a "trainer program" to pump up all of their stats to 150. Cheaters will cheat. Don't worry about them.
Why? Just as Iron Man players like to thump their chests about how they play the game, cheaters like to cheat because they get enjoyment out of playing that way.
As the game designers, are you so narrow minded to dictate how someone has to enjoy the game?
Albert - Pariah - eastwoodaen[/code]
-
I have to disagree. If you can do something, there will always be some temptation to go ahead and do it. I like the fact that you can't save during a mission, yet I would probably do it if I could, being fully aware that it's not as much fun if I do!
Sometimes you just need somebody to give you a little help if your fingers are itching and you're about to do something stupid ;)
Personally, I like the idea of only allowing a certain number of saves, which depends on the mission size and the difficulty level.
Or what happens if you take it one step further? Only allow a certain number of saves per day/week on geoscape mode. That way you could actually _lose_ a mission without being allowed to replay it. That way you could lose soldiers or even bases and would have to live with the consequences! Of course you should probably link this to the difficulty level somehow. Also you'd have to be able to save a game on quitting.
-
I do have a suggestion that would solve the above situation and still keep the terror/punishment feeling. Do allow to save the game and then automatically quit back to desktop. I also suggest that savegames during combat cannot be reloaded until 5 minutes after they have been saved.
I had exactly the same idea, but you have written it before me. :>
So I strongly agree with this "emergency quit" thing. But in my opinion this restriction with loading is unnecessary (and difficult to code). This quitting is frustrating enough for the cheaters to prevent cheating. :)
-
I agree that the five minutes limitation is a bit tricky, however just to leave such functionality to autimatically quit to the desktop would most likely suffice.
Anyhow, the main problem is probably to write the save algorithm in the first place during combat mode :)
-
How about a limited number of temporary save slots per mission? 5 or 10 at most. These slots would be deleted as soon as you win or lose the mission.
Regards,
Winter
-
I have to disagree. If you can do something, there will always be some temptation to go ahead and do it. I like the fact that you can't save during a mission, yet I would probably do it if I could, being fully aware that it's not as much fun if I do!
On the higher difficult levels (the highest one in particular), the absence of battlescape saves isn't beneficial to the experience and funfactor so much as blatantly detrimental. This is because it takes signifigantly more time to make any sort of progress *without* losing soldiers as you are forced to play extremely conservatively. Even then, success is hardly guaranteed given that the AI seems to "cheat" and is aware of the disposition and location of your forces at all times.
On occasion, I've spent somewhere in the vincinity of half an hour on a mission (usually when there's a large contingent of aliens) only to be thwarted by a single soldier death, because X/Y camping alien knows Z trooper is approaching, realizes he has the TU to reach and Kerrblade him, and has the HP/Armour to effortlessly tank the rest of my team's reaction fire (incredibly, even when they're all equipped with plasma rifles). You might ask, what about grenades? It takes 4 of them in close proximity (at least) to kill armoured aliens on max difficulty, and I didn't know exactly where he was in order to direct them. Case in point, even when demonstrating every precaution imaginable, I still ended up losing approximately thirty minutes of my time. This is of course but one example. There are other occasions in which freak incidents such as a particularily deviant grenade or missile caused me to lose tens of minutes repeatedly. Obviously this can hardly be considered "fun" or "entertaining".
Perhaps as a compromise, an "ironman" mode option can be made availible at the creation a new game. Once selected, it cannot be changed later, permitting only log-out saves, so those who wish to enjoy that kind of experience, but do not have the discipline to given the availibility of a save option, can, while it isn't imposed on the rest of the playerbase.
-
I guess an "extra hard" tick box could be an option. If enabled, it means you can't save (or only somehow limited) irrespective of the difficulty level you choose. That way you can play on "easy" without being allowed to save, but if you want to you can still play on "superhuman" and save as often as you like.
I hear what you're saying about the AI being good enough as it is and not being allowed to save taking the fun away. I have to admit, I didn't think this through. Also I don't consider myself a hard core gamer who'd want to give himself an extra kick by playing it on the highest difficulty without saving, but I'd certainly would like to try that on medium. So if there's a way of customising the difficulty level, that could be quite neat!
-
On the higher difficult levels (the highest one in particular), the absence of battlescape saves isn't beneficial to the experience and funfactor so much as blatantly detrimental. This is because it takes signifigantly more time to make any sort of progress *without* losing soldiers as you are forced to play extremely conservatively. Even then, success is hardly guaranteed given that the AI seems to "cheat" and is aware of the disposition and location of your forces at all times.
Sorry, but this specifically is the 'wrong' reason for battlescape saves. If you can't handle the heat and loss of troops, play a lighter level of AI.
I'd like to see a battlescape save because I've played a map for an hour or longer, taking my time, using tight strategies. My guys die, oh well. I think I replace everyone at least twice by the time I hit the end of the tech tree on standard, never mind harder levels.
In the end you play your game, I'll play mine. You want a 'godmode', called battlescape saves. I want something that when the girl shows up in the lingerie I close the computer. Now. :) ... without losing what I was doing.
Same result, battlescape saves. I guess I just can't see the challenge of reloading the game over and over as you slowly detect each alien. If they're pounding the dirt out of me (and I'm not enjoying the challenge), I'd drop down an AI level.
-
In the end you play your game, I'll play mine. You want a 'godmode', called battlescape saves. I want something that when the girl shows up in the lingerie I close the computer. Now. ... without losing what I was doing.
Same result, battlescape saves. I guess I just can't see the challenge of reloading the game over and over as you slowly detect each alien. If they're pounding the dirt out of me (and I'm not enjoying the challenge), I'd drop down an AI level.
It's not that they're "pounding the dirt" out of me, so much as that one or two freak incidents, or unlucky occurances can be almost expected to happen per engagement, regardless of my precautions and systemic approach. I don't want a "godmode". I am willing to accept the consequences of my mistakes. I want a safeguard against random misfortune. It is not fun to have your well laid plans executed over the course of tens of minutes to be suddenly defeated by no fault of your own via a misfiring plasma grenade, an alien that inexplicably survives your entire squad's reaction fire against all odds to the contrary, or even a misclick at times.
-
Hi, i also think the developner should make it possible that everyone can save within a battle. Everyone can use saving or not if he or she dont want to save. But it really should be possible. Not everyone is just a Iron man. When i come home from work i just want to play a few minutes and not always a whole battle. So PLEASE make it possible to save within a battle. If there are someone who will save every minute, why not? If that is their way of having fun when they are playing AI. PLEASE think about it. Everyone should have been fun when playing AI. It is really a fantastic game. I played Terror from the deep an apocalypse and now AI. PLEASE make this whish of many possible!
OR WHAT I PREFER: An Autosave during Battle. On Easy: all 5 minutes; On Normal: all 10 minutes .... Perhaps this should be a solution :)
-
Hi,
I rarely have time to play for more than 1 hour because I have a wife and daughter. So I simply do not have the time to try a mission a hundred times, just because I loose half of my staff...
I play to relax and: Yes, I save and load often because I love to play a mission "clean" without casualties in my team.
I tried UFO AI, but without savegames in combat I will probably wait for UFO-Extraterrestrials.
Just a word to the developers. When I was a student 10 years ago, I also could play a single game for 12 hours a day. And I did with the original UFO as well as with TFTD. But you cannot be a hardcore-gamer and a good father and husband at the same time.
So get down from your hardcore-gamer-attitude and give people who just don't have time or just like to play another style a savegame in combat.
-
I think the best option would be an autosave which overwrites itself every turn. That'd be useful for dealing with both crashes and needing to leave mid-battle.
I also feel the imposed Iron-man, in general, isn't a very good idea. You say "If the option is there there'll always be the temptation" but I say that if you can't resist the option to reload, then you simply aren't up to ironman play. Big deal. It's a game, if you don't *want* to play it ironman, then why bother trying in the first place? Enforced ironman doesn't help the people who want to play that way in the first place, and it isn't doing anything but frustrating the people who don't want to play that way.
-
Are there any technical issues with saving during combat, from a programming perspective how much extra work would it be (considering all the other priorities at the moment)
-
I think the best option would be an autosave which overwrites itself every turn. That'd be useful for dealing with both crashes and needing to leave mid-battle..
I support this idea (= save gets deleted after being loaded), which would make save-scumming impossible (unless you make manual backup copies of your combat savegames...) while at the same time allowing to resume after a crash... or dinner. :wink:
However, autosaving every turn seems a bit overkill (every n turns then ? :P ); so a manual save option may be enough.
-
I like the inability for manual saves as well, I know if it is there I would eventually use it in a very tough situation. Since there is no option, this game has a more intense feeling then other games. LOVE IT.
BUT, maybe an auto save function could be added which will save every 20 turns or so to make crashes less painful. Using rotating file names would prevent the problem GalCiv II has which sometimes crashes on save and kills the old save game.
-
I am totally against the save feature, it will wipe out all the challenge from the game.
-
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
-
Well... I think number of slots to save game in the middle of the battle can be function of level:
{...}
I think this scheme is fair enough.
I suggest save in combat (all possible slot or addition slots) to make paid. Cost can be depending of level:
Very easy -- 100000
Easy -- 300000
Standard -- 999999.99 ;)
Hard, Very Hard - unavailable.
It is possible to be save also for WebMoney (and donate this money for this project :D) but then without an Internet in game it will be impossible to play.
-
I think this paying for savegames sounds utterly artificial to me.
I support Winter's idea of limited combat save slots (they could be decreasing with higher difficulty levels).
Since this is a matter of difficulty balance I say yes, devs should should carefully handle this no matter whether the players want to choose everything themselves. The game experience depends on how the game is designed not by what features I use.
If it is a feature of the game it is not a cheat and I will say "that was too easy" instead of "if I had not used feature xy it would have been more fun".
On higher difficulty levels you have to get used to losses on the battlefield and I do not like games which tend to reward people who have a freaky habit of "perfect play just because it is possible".
Implement a cheat code for stats and money if you like but at some point it must be the same game experience for all players.
For people who have problems with unstable power supply or urgent interruptions the limited quicksave option or something like this would be nice.
But please do not adopt the difficulty levels to people who like to save and load every 10 secs. (You would have to make it harder to let it still be a challenge for those and therefore make it nearly impossible or luck dependant for the "normal" player imho.)
-
Thread necromancy at work.
Because of the involved change of difficulty and the loss of fun (perfect win is possible, so it becomes a goal, so some feel they have to save/load all the time [including me]), it was decided long ago to not implement this. Ways to allow a "save and quit" were also discussed and will very likely be accepted if anyone codes such a feature.
-
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
-
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
-
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).
-
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. ;D
-
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. ;D
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).
-
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.
-
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? :)
-
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)
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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?
-
This seems a huge issue for quite a few people, so I am happy to take a look at implementing this.
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?
I'd definitely support this kind of save (or any kind really) since the days where I could spend 4-6 hours at the PC at a stretch are long behind me. (some days I'm lucky to have 30-40 minutes at once to play without real life intruding)
There's somewhat of a balance between saves lowering difficulty and real life making them a necessity since redoing 3/4's of a mission due to running out of time just plain sucks. (one of the main reasons why I mostly quit playing mmorpg's, you just can't up and leave for a while after 30-40 minutes without making your friends mad in game)
-
Personally I prefer to have shorter missions without the ability to save in combat.
The are a few maps (the canyon, wellington) which take longer to finish, but the most of the maps are short.
-
I am actually fine with no-save during combat but I hope there are other ways to speed up combat.
For example, disable animation of your units, or dont care if crouched units move slower than non-crouched units (in their animations). Also maybe some hotkey combo tricks like space to select alien and "x" key to fire in best available mode or something etc..
-
I cant believe it, you did create this fantastic game, and then you didnt implement saving in combat?!?!? Youre spoiling the whole game for most of the fans of the original UFO-Serie!!!
It would take away some of the atmosphere??? ARE YOU NUTS?? ::) If some1 feels like that, he just shouldnt use it!!
OMG such a great game, and its crap because someones fearing about the atmosphere if you could save in combat, i JUST DONT GET THIS!!
This game could be a goldmine, but NOOOO, we want atmosphere.... ATMOSPHERE! Unbelievable... Im out of here, keep your game for the "Kind-of-iron-man-folks" and be happy with it...
Im going back to "Jagged Alliance2" or slt.
*shaking his head while leaving, sigh*
-
Good bye, lolser :-D
-
Hey guys I really think you need to implement an ingame save feature in this awesome game! The reason? I don't have one, i got like 10!!! Here are the most important and urgent reasons.
1.) I cannot figure out how to hit the retry button on the tactical menu.
2.) Meteorites, lightning, cosmic rays, eco terrorists and even russian space stations strike the power station near my house ALL the time and my UPS is dead :o.
3.) My kid won't play the game w/o a save feature...course I don't really care about that...more time for me!
4.) Sometimes Noah rolls by my pad ranting about a coming great deluge, please please please implement a save feature so that I can save in the middle of a battle instead of spending a few minutes just replaying the map.
-
LOL! Ya get plenty of points for originality at least ;D
-
i would add my vote for a save feature, mainly for time issues, sometimes those missions take either a long time, or alot of tries....sometimes i play for awhile, and i have this theory in my head, ok ill play until something happens, then my base gets raided (new version), or i accidently hit the 12hr time boost, while my dropship is on the way.....opps cant save....i have to either play (really need sleep), or have to go from my last save which was 2 hrs ago.
if people dont want to save they dont have to, i know some people will use it to save\load, save\load, but that would be their problem.
implement this feature.
-
Seriously I would add my vote for an autosave feature that occurred in player controlled intervals while playing on the GEOSCAPE (I.e. every 5 minutes, every minute, every game month, every game week etc). Definitely should autosave right before entering a mission just because sometimes I get excited and forget to save. I LOVE the fact there is no save feature on the battle maps, does a great job of keep the terror alive...
-
This seems a huge issue for quite a few people, so I am happy to take a look at implementing this.
Huzzah, Nemchenk!
I would like to offer what i perceive as a compromise position: autosave at the end of every turn, but no player-initiated saves. This would materially help those with brownouts or persuasive spouses [you only lose a few minutes of 'work'], but not be of significant benefit to those who want to make sure their shot flies true...
-
Come on people stop dragging your families and/or forces of nature into this discussion, unless you want to keep the laughter alive. Sure I have not beaten the game yet but no map has taken me longer than half an hour so far of continuous play.
-
Try looking after kids Captain. When you're a parent (or baby sitter) of two 2-1/2 year olds, having 30 minutes of uninterrupted computer time will be quite a rare luxury.
Or try being someone with a job that requires them to be "on call" nearly 24/7, such as emergency room doctors, firemen, etc... With that kind of work you get the call and you drop what you;re doing and run out the door. Which makes a save in battle feature a necessity for thorough enjoyment of the game.
Also thanks Nemchenk for looking into this. an auto save after every turn sounds like just what those of us with priorities that come before video games need.
-
I am not sure that the save-in-battlescape feature would be welcome in the standard release. Anyone is welcome to modify the game and release a patch for the code, or an updated installer.
-
I am not sure that the save-in-battlescape feature would be welcome in the standard release. Anyone is welcome to modify the game and release a patch for the code, or an updated installer.
That's just the thing so many people seem to be missing the point of. Those of us that need a save in battle feature are ones who are just to busy with real life to sit and play through an entire map in one sitting. (some of the maps later on in game can take 45-60 minutes or longer on harder difficulties)
Now if we're too busy to play though a battle map in one sitting, where are we supposed to find the time to learn how to code an auto-save feature into the game, let alone actually code it?
-
i would add my vote for a save feature, mainly for time issues, sometimes those missions take either a long time, or alot of tries....sometimes i play for awhile, and i have this theory in my head, ok ill play until something happens, then my base gets raided (new version), or i accidently hit the 12hr time boost, while my dropship is on the way.....opps cant save....i have to either play (really need sleep), or have to go from my last save which was 2 hrs ago.
if people dont want to save they dont have to, i know some people will use it to save\load, save\load, but that would be their problem.
implement this feature.
knightsubzero, the game quick-saves just before you go into battle. So the dropship arrives, you choose Fight, then immediately abort the mission. Load the quicksave with F2, your ship's back on top of the site (has to be told to engage though, for some reason it reverts to idle). F2 still works in the SVN version even if they no longer have the "Continue" button when choosing single player at the starting menu.
-
The entire reason for a tactical game save option is, for me, the fact that I want the excitement of the initial experience. I want to savor every moment and make sensible tactical decisions to protect the lives of my squad.
I am not interested in playing through a tactical scenario over and over simply for the false reward of optimal results, but I might have accidently hit the "E" key instead of the "W" key somewhere along the way and totally screwed up my game. Or, I may not have enough time to finish before I get interrupted by another family member needing to use the computer (sorry, we only own one!) so I'm left with only one alternative- rush and play sloppily.
Perhaps I'm getting old, but I find it difficult and highly undesirable in many cases, to play a thoughtful, well executed tactical episode in less than an hour (the mine shaft and the NY subway battles come to mind).
I hope somewhere along the way, this imposition on game play somehow gets resolved. A saved game is not a moral issue, it's a sensible, welcomed convenience in todays hectic world.
-
Try looking after kids Captain. When you're a parent (or baby sitter) of two 2-1/2 year olds, having 30 minutes of uninterrupted computer time will be quite a rare luxury.
Or try being someone with a job that requires them to be "on call" nearly 24/7, such as emergency room doctors, firemen, etc... With that kind of work you get the call and you drop what you;re doing and run out the door. Which makes a save in battle feature a necessity for thorough enjoyment of the game.
Also thanks Nemchenk for looking into this. an auto save after every turn sounds like just what those of us with priorities that come before video games need.
I can be who I wanna be, I don't have to try! I love this game but I donno if I'd like the babysitter (who should be doing their job) to be playing this absorbing game. If a kind person could mod-in saving features it would be appreciated, after all professionals and parents (especiallyprofessional parents!) play this game too.
-
How about a limited number of temporary save slots per mission? 5 or 10 at most. These slots would be deleted as soon as you win or lose the mission.
Regards,
Winter
You did not read this post (http://ufoai.ninex.info/forum/index.php?topic=1306.msg6288#msg6288) above, eh? :)
I agree with those who say to put it in, and the above limits would also satisfy the iron man gametype fans (I'm sure they won't play on anything less than hard). I also had to quit missions due to r/l committments, and once the game hung up on me in combat too. Apart from that, yeah, I'd like to be able not to loose half an hour gameplay due to an unlucky shot.
just my 2c
-
Frankly, I never felt the need to save an in-game mission until now since I usually never save unless I'm leaving (but I do need to save when I'm leaving) and I respect the fact that this developers team like to play the way I do, I always try to play in that ironman concept but I never needed that behaviour to be dictated by feature limitations.
First of all, is cheating such a big deal? Saving is allowed because it's usefull, it's in all games this game is inspired on or competes with. They've gone with the extra trouble of coding and testing that for a reason. Did the ability to save broke any of those games? Would you want any of those games fixed by disabling that feature? I don't think so.
Anyway, I guess the reasons to include that feature have all been explained in detail while reasons not to include it have not. I think this probably isn't top priority right now but I don't really believe some of the explanations about the atmosphere and stuff. I think the developers were simply lazy about this, it's a lot of work to implement it and they wouldn't make much use of it anyway (as most os us would not). And I don't mean this with any disrespect, I wouldn't dare to call opensource developers of free software so expertly done up to this point, lazy ;D we're all lazy in a way and I would win if there was a contest, my criticism goes only for the reasons given that doesn't make sense to me. If the reason is lack of time and desire to implement it, fine, we can only hope someone will have both one day. If there is really an effort to keep the game from having that feature because of the atmosphere and cheating and all, then I'm not fine with that. I really don't care how people like to play their games but I do care about the limitations to them if they spoil my own game experience.
That's why I don't really agree with the limited saving ability either, I think this game lacks that feature for lack of time/desire to implement it and not really for any other big reason so if someone's going to implement it I'd rather if you'd go all the way as any other game out there. It's probably much simpler to do that anyway than to develop the algorythms necessary to try and stop people who enjoy the game in different ways.
-
Very well put Smig, I'm curious how close to the mark of truth you hit with that :)
-
I write this, in part, after having the game bug out after my laptop hibernated due to low battery, just moments before completing a long and rather frustrating mission. The other part had to do with reading up on a blog/article referencing many situations where saving restrictions have greatly diminished the fun of gameplay, for minimal benefit towards the designer's vision.
If it is more of a design philosophy change, rather than an actual technical limitation or resource/time constraint, then perhaps a compromise could be made. Within the initial settings of the game, wherein the player selects his difficulty level, there could be an optional in-battle saving toggle. When on, the player can save (and reload) mid-battle without restriction. Alternatively, the toggle can be shut off, and battle progress will instead be auto-saved at the start and end of each team's round. Perhaps the autosave could even be erased when loaded, and thus only re-established at the next turn change. This would present a buffer of sorts for the forced leaving of the game, or even a random crash, while still keeping the mode a bit more 'hardcore' than other games.
Additionally, perhaps an in-game option to re-enable player-controlled saving could be placed as an in-game options, though with no going back to 'hardcore' battle saving once the restriction has been removed.
I hope this can help strike a middle-ground, where players can opt for the added challenge and tension involved in a "one-life" approach to missions without the benefit of rampant save-loading, while still allowing leniency for the players who would be otherwise turned off by such an approach.
-
Hmm, at this point I don't see any room for battlescape saving other than a simple autosave function. That would address most concerns while leaving the concept well enough intact.
Regards,
Winter
-
I remember playing some game a long time ago where you went into a dungeon or something and you couldn't save/reload over and over, but you could save and quit and come back. It worked like this:
If you save mid-mission, the game quit to the title screen after saving. If you load a game that was saved mid-mission, the saved game is either deleted or changed so that the current mission is counted as aborted or something (you have to win the current mission and then save it to overwrite it).
-
even if you all would hate me for this - there will be NO save feature in battlescape - no auto save, no you-are-allowed-to-safe-5-times-feature, nothing else. If you want to have such a feature i would love to provide the patch on the page - but again, never in an official release. I'm sorry. Also that's the last time i'm responding to this. If you want such a feature, code it, supply a patch, others can apply it then - that's what's open source is about - but never in any official release.
-
Right, typical.
Any chance of getting the real reason why?
I get the impression the "too lazy to code it" guess is pretty close to the mark.
I'm more curious at this point the actual reasoning "why not never" then any hopes of logically reasoning with anyone.
(and on a side note, it's a free game so complaining tends to be a waste of time. Paying companies give a damn because dissatisfied customers cost them profit. Free open source "hobbyists" do it for fun and put in whatever they want regardless of public opinion. Polite and good for PR? No. Well within their rights because they're the ones that are putting the time/effort into coding it? Yes. Likely to inspire outsiders into giving a hand? Unlikely.
-
"Too lazy to code" doesn't cover it. It's not so much the implementing of it as the maintaining part that is the barrier. It's not worth it in the eyes of the development team. For that reason a firm decision was made not to have in-mission saving. Let me say that again. A decision was made. That means there will not be a changing of minds, no matter how much "logical reasoning" you throw at it. This isn't about the game being free, or the devs not giving a damn about anyone, or even about trying to get as many people to help as possible. It's about making design decisions, and then sticking to them.
-
Fair point about sticking to design decisions.
How about a "Save, Then Enter" button on the screen when the craft is ready to land? That wouldn't affect the design and it would require minimal code.
-
@ManicMiner: It's done automatically, on quicksave slot, AFAIK.
-geever
-
Let me say that again. A decision was made. That means there will not be a changing of minds, no matter how much logical reasoning you throw at it.
LOL...you do realise that this sentance isn't exactly flattering. ;)
-
Mattn: No one will hate you for running your project the way you see fit and we already got more than our money's worth. You haven't said anything new either. I think what frustrates people the most is the lack of a good reason to cut out something that people usually take for granted while receiving these blank "No - Never - No matter what!" responses.
BTAxis: A design decision is not something you should stick to just for the sake of it and there's nothing wrong in rethinking a "firm design decision" if it proves to be detrimental to gameplay. I understand what you're saying since as things keep changing in battlescape, maintaining a bug-free saving system might be hard. But then why not just postpone this feature for late in development, way back in the queue, as a low priority addition?
In any case, since the developers seem to be shielded against all logical reasoning we throw at them, maybe someone else isn't. It's unlikely nemchenk is looking into this, his last post in this thread was on February and on the forum was in March. I hope someone that is already familiar with this code can find the time to develop this feature and maintain it. One thing is obvious, there's a lot of demand for this.
-
Right, that's enough. This thread is one inch away from a lock.
Design decisions are set in stone where necessary, especially when many other decisions and implemented code structures are dependant on them. This is one of those decisions. Anyone who has ever been in a team-based design/programming position will understand why we do this. We're here to make a great game the way we see fit, not to please everyone on the forums, and nothing's going to get into the game when all the project admins are opposed to it -- no matter who you appeal to. If you are unable to accept this, then you're just plain out of luck.
Regards,
Winter
-
Given they've stated they are close minded on the subject and no amount of logical (or any other type) of reasoning will make them change their minds there's really not much point in discussing it further.
It's similar to the governing of communist Russia, "We have made our decision comrade, and we are in charge. Continue to complain and we will silence you!"
-
O NOES, THE CRUEL OPPRESSORS ARE NOT MAKING THEIR GAME QUITE THE WAY YOU WANTED!!!!!111one
Locked.
Regards,
Winter