UFO:Alien Invasion
General => Discussion => Topic started by: MachineGun on March 08, 2009, 12:15:17 am
-
Hi. UFO-AI is a really high quality game -- excellent graphics and sound, and a very impressive concerted open source programming effort.
There is only one problem I have with UFO-AI, which was the same problem I had with the old X-COM games: After the first few months (game-time) of game play, the game involves an enormous burden of micro-management. Eventually it seems like I get overwhelmed with all the minor details, like keeping track of which base is researching what technology, moving aircraft parts from one base to another, making sure every crew is supplied and equipped with weapons, checking on troops in the hospitals, making sure aircraft are properly equipped... and so I get bored and go play Eboard or Wesnoth.
Maybe a focus of more future development efforts should be more and better auto-management tools, which can be utilized when the user starts to get a lot of bases. The auto-calculated battle option is nice, but more base auto-management tools would help. Aircraft auto-control options might be cool too: how about making it possible for some aircraft to automatically launch upon UFO radar detection?
Anyone else agree/disagree? Do I have a point, or is this "micro-management" an essential part of the game?
-
I don't think ufo:ai has too much micromanagement. I don't like that auto-aircraft idea either. If I know that aircraft can't shot down the ufo I'll have to recall it every time and so...
An auto equip feature and equipment templates are planned though.
-geever
-
I don't think there is too much micro-management but the devs are planning on making management more effective anyhow.
-
I also do not think it has too much micro management, but that is because I enjoy micro management.
You will find that X-Com's (and its sequels and spinoffs and remakes) main draw may be the combat, the premise, or even the feel. I have noticed that those things may bring people in, but what really holds people to the game(s) seems to be the ability to micromanage down to the tiniest detail. Some people (me included) really enjoy such things.
The hard part about developing such a game really seems to be the balance: the ability to micromanage deeply, but not the need to.
-
Yeah, what he said.
One reason for the different time scales is to give you enough time to go through and make sure your various bases (assuming the other bases are not just glorified hangar bays) are doing what they are supposed to.
-
Hi Machinegun,
I disagree that UFOAI has too much micro-M. In fact, it might be a little too little for me personally(I am a 4X Space Sim player, like well.... Space Empires Series).
Still, for a X-Com type, the amt of Management is just nice. So, lets just keep it as it is, ok? :P
PS: Machinegun - going by ur nick, are u one who is face paced? U prefer X-Com style in X-com afterlight style? :P
-
We're not going to manage the level of micro found in Space Empires, because Space Empires is almost 100% micro.
-
I'm in favour of automating as much as possible, or at least providing the option to automate. Good design allows people to play the game their way rather than the designer's way, and doesn't let the mechanics get in the way of gameplay.
Regards,
Winter
-
True.
One screen allowing management of multiple bases at the same time would be cool, for research, production etc.
-
@Winter:
I agree that matters of 'taste' should be made optional. Like in 'preferences menu'.
But keep in mind that such options leave us with two(or more) sets of functions in the code for the same/similar purpose. And they have to be maintained...
I also think that there shouldn't be any pure administrative tasks in a game. But what I recall from playing through 2.2.1 is that ALL the micro-management includes *decisions* that affect the performance of your team (except for buying ammo). And the game seems to be designed to the goal that there is NO single optimum for that.
The only thing I missed was a minimum-requirements-filter when selecting 8 soldiers for my next base from a list of some 120. But that has probably already been requested by somebody else.
@MachineGun:
What was the single most boring/annoying micro-management task for you ?
And HOW would you like to see that task handled by the automization ?
-
There are a few features I would like to see which would make the existing micromanagement less onerous. I'm playing the last stable release, so apologies if this stuff is already in the dev version.
Such as:
FOR SOLDIERS:
- An "Autoequip Squad" button available from the "assign soldiers" screen, which would automatically load out eight soldiers' primary, secondary, misc and armor slots by comparing the available inventory with a list of preferred equipment, stopping when it matches the highest-preference eq for that slot with something at the base, and then loading it on;
- "Save Loadout" and "Load Loadout" buttons available from the equip soldiers screen, allowing players to save a loadout they like and save time using it for multiple soldiers with the same eq;
- "Apply to All" button allowing, for example, for a player to give the same armor to everyone in a squad with the click of a button;
- Rather than having to drag-and-drop, place items in equipment slots when they're clicked on, based on a preferential list of where they're supposed to go (IE pri. weapons go in the right hand, secondary weapons go in the right hand, if not, then the holster, if not, then the left hand, if not, then the backpack; misc. goes in the belt, if not, then the holster, if not, then the backpack ...)
FOR AIRCRAFT:
- Similar elimination of drag-and-drop as above;
- Better tracking of ammo for aircraft weapons
- Removing the "buy/sell aircraft" and "produce aircraft" screens from the Aircraft tab and folding them into buy/sell and production, respectively;
FOR BUY/SELL:
- A "Match Guns & Ammo" feature that tries to balance inventory so there's two ammo packs for every weapon, and auto-buys after each mission as necessary to keep that level;
- See merging with aircraft tab, above;
- Removing the current tendency for auto-sell to kick in automatically, especially for stuff that hasn't been researched yet;
FOR EMPLOYEES:
- An easier way to see a breakdown of employees in each base;
FOR HOSPITAL:
- An "Auto-heal" function that, when enabled, allows for injured soldiers to automatically go to the hospital after each mission;
- Automatically removing soldiers from aircraft squad duty when they enter the hospital, and a notification of such when it happens;
POST-MISSION & MONTHLY:
- Notices detailing all the automatically-performed functions after each mission & after each month
-
@bolter:
Many of your suggestions circle around the equipment screen. Did you know that right-clicking an item will equip it ? This greatly simplifies this part :)
Most of your other suggestions are already in 2.3.
-
In that x-com clone that Microsloth did I did like the concept of equipment templates.
-
What about tooltips for base in geoscape that would display current research and production.
For transfers, I was thinking of dotted lines connecting source and destination bases, with another tooltip displaying transfered personnel and/or items and ETA.
-
We're not going to manage the level of micro found in Space Empires, because Space Empires is almost 100% micro.
Haha, yupz yupz. In fact i thnk its 200% micro. And plus, with so mani mods around..... hmmmm, its almost 400%! Okie, sidetracked.
Bak to UFOAI, i thnk the current level is very nice! In fact, the console and the user interface - which is wat being worked on, these are the ones that could make the whole experience better when improved! :D
-
True.
One screen allowing management of multiple bases at the same time would be cool, for research, production etc.
i would like that, too : )
as far as my opinion about the micromanagement goes, it can greatly be alleviated by improving the gui.
idk about c, but if ufo:ai was object-oriented, i would suggest tree gui anytime.
so many complicated gui-s are done nicely with perfectly ordinary standard trees, and i think ufo:ai bases management would fit in a tree very nicely.
for example, if we were implementing a feature to assign aircraft to a fleet so that interceptors would protect the dropship.
1) we could design a special screen where we select the aircraft that would be in the fleet.
2) we could create a folder for the fleet and put the aircraft (shortcuts) into the folder.
now, there would be absolutely _no_ difference in micromanagement that i could think of, and it would be a matter of taste and neither would be unplayable, but nevertheless if someone asked my personal opinion, i would say the first option would be retarded.
where i think tree gui would really make a difference is when things get more complicated and there are multiple bases.
the new research management screen where all the research in all bases was put into one screen made things easier, right?
-
FOR HOSPITAL:
- An "Auto-heal" function that, when enabled, allows for injured soldiers to automatically go to the hospital after each mission;
- Automatically removing soldiers from aircraft squad duty when they enter the hospital, and a notification of such when it happens;
Yes and no. I would like the autoheal, it seems a bit odd that my soldiers automatically show up in hospital but no-one is taking care of them unless I specifically tell them to do.
I don't like the idea of automatically removing soldiers from aircraft as that is something that previous X-com missions did and it drove me crazy. With soldiers like my snipers I have no problems sending them into missions, and every time they're removed from the aircraft I have to waste a couple of minutes re-equipping them.
-
I think Bolter's list is a great suggestion.
Evidently, though, such automation should be narrowly customizable. I thought the auto-hospital feature was obviously good, but Frungy doesn't like it. So, we would like to be able to turn on and off the various particular features of automanagement.
I imagine that the developers have rather a lot on their plate now, however, and this is a long-term wish.
-
ahh, right, luckily i forgot to say my mouth about automating, and unfortunately now i am going to correct this little mistake.
if someone likes automations, i hope some practice playing x-com:apocalypse will make you hate it.
of course, the x-com:apoc ppl didn't seem to know anything about group movement algorithm which would have removed one of the annoying problems (in tactical map).
the x-com:apoc soldier is a smartass compared to ufo:ai soldier.
respect to devs who can do automations that don't drive some players nuts.
i guess it would demand very flexible thinking and a good understanding of where to stop.
because you don't play like i do, so your favourite automation might increase my microing rather than reduce it.
-
Yes and no. I would like the autoheal, it seems a bit odd that my soldiers automatically show up in hospital but no-one is taking care of them unless I specifically tell them to do.
We have done this already. We don't even have medics as employee anymore (no need to hire or command them). microman--;
I don't like the idea of automatically removing soldiers from aircraft as that is something that previous X-com missions did and it drove me crazy. With soldiers like my snipers I have no problems sending them into missions, and every time they're removed from the aircraft I have to waste a couple of minutes re-equipping them.
They are not removed but I think they should be removed from the aircraft if badly damaged. There is no use to risk his/her life.
-geever
-
[...]They are not removed but I think they should be removed from the aircraft if badly damaged. There is no use to risk his/her life.
-geever
if stats would depend on how healthy the sniper is, you mean?
-
I don't think that's what he meant, but soldiers do lose combat efficiency if wounded over 50%.
-
if stats would depend on how healthy the sniper is, you mean?
I meant if they're under (let's say) 33% of health they shouldn't go to missions.
-geever
-
I think that's the player's responsibility. I see no reason to deny him a soldier just because that soldier is badly wounded. Streamlining things to reduce micro is okay, but this really affects gameplay, and that isn't good in my opinion.
-
well, they could have a point in their contract about not having to go on missions if wounded more than some %.
otherwise, as i see it, the trigger finger of the sniper can go on a mission, if that's the only thing that's left of the sniper.
-
There's no need to go into it in so much detail. Just keep it simple.
-
I have been playing a few days now and first of all I would like to thank the developers for an interesting game. Great job!
As a beginner, I would greatly appreciate an auto-equip alternative, since my men die too often.
Also I would like to always have the option to auto-resolve tactical missions. And when it is resolved maybe another pop-up with detailed statistics?
All for now, and thanks again for a great game!
/Leeto
-
well, they could have a point in their contract about not having to go on missions if wounded more than some %.
What I really like about UFO:AI is the not saving during missions, it has really challenged me. In previous versions of UFO I'd end up spending a lot of time plotting and scheming on how to take alien leaders prison... in UFO:AI I end up plotting and scheming on how to get at least some of my team through the mission alive!
As a result though, particularly in the first month or two, I've ended up sending partial squads out on missions, with only 6/8 slots full. If soldiers were removed from duty if they were badly injured then on some missions I would have been fielding 4/8 or less soldiers.
otherwise, as i see it, the trigger finger of the sniper can go on a mission, if that's the only thing that's left of the sniper.
Damn right! There is no union in Phalanx, you're humanity's last line of defense against alien invaders. If your commander walks into the hospital and orders you out of bed then you shoot up on some painkillers and haul your ass into that dropship! Even if you are spaced out on painkillers your cover fire could save someone else's life. Sheesh, this isn't the girl scouts, its serious!
... of course I'd imagine my commander isn't popular with his soldiers.
I just like to keep my options open. I don't want to micro-manage to the point where I'm colour-coordinating my troops' socks, but I would like the option to tell them where they do and what they do.
-
Damn right! There is no union in Phalanx, you're humanity's last line of defense against alien invaders. If your commander walks into the hospital and orders you out of bed then you shoot up on some painkillers and haul your ass into that dropship! Even if you are spaced out on painkillers your cover fire could save someone else's life. Sheesh, this isn't the girl scouts, its serious!
... of course I'd imagine my commander isn't popular with his soldiers.
...and, trying to tune in with that rl attitude, you would probably get less recruits each month, i guess.
actually i didn't mean that there would need to be a real contract and all, it would rather be imaginary.
all there is to it, is a justification of why you can't take a soldier on a mission if he has less than some x health left (i am so virtuous that i am trying to see things from the auto-hospitalizer's point of view).
if there is no such contract and you are trying to say that i don't _want_ to take a soldier to the field if it has less than 33% health, then i say: "sorry, what if my preferred auto-hospitalization threshold is, 32%? now what? micro?"I don't want to micro-manage to the point where I'm colour-coordinating my troops' socks, but I would like the option to tell them where they do and what they do.
strangely, that's exactly what i have been doing : )
soldier with speed under 23 gets arctic, then urban until 25, then jungle until 30, and desert for everything above that.
it was a pity the individual color didn't show in alternative hud portraits when i tried that hud.
-
A good point about the recruits - which is actually the case, in a roundabout way, isn't it?
Your squads gets their butts handed to them = unhappy countries = less available recruits
-
I think that's the player's responsibility. I see no reason to deny him a soldier just because that soldier is badly wounded. Streamlining things to reduce micro is okay, but this really affects gameplay, and that isn't good in my opinion.
I agree.... its really up to the player. I mean afterall, the soldier could be reassigned to other tasks such as being the suppress firer - where risks is minimal, yet experience can be gained.
Thats the risk the player (and the soldier) takes. There are afterall, kamikaze (aka brave) soldiers in real life, who takes on mission after mission, knowing that every experience (and man) counts.
-
We should wonder what mean the health bar. What mean to be at 50% of health ? Broken legs or arms ? Heavy trauma ?
Can you imagine soldiers on battlefield with crutch or wheelchair ? ;)
Any base should have at least 2 teams, just to let their people the chance to get some rest. That mean enought soldiers to complete a team.
-
I preferred the reaction fire method in the stable version as opposed to the development version. That's about the only "too much micromanagement" issue I can think of.
-
The revised RF system may be a little more micro than the previous one, but the previous one encouraged RF and was unfair.
-
Not sure what you mean exactly. I don't use RF any more or less than I did in the stable version. I just click more buttons. If clicking more buttons is meant to "discourage" RF, then it's pretty lame.
-
No. in 2.2, RF works by taking TUs from the next turn, while this RF works by taking TUs for the current turn. So with the old system, you could happily use up however many TUs you wanted and still get a full RF on the enemy's turn. It was safe. With this system, you have to chance your current TUs on the assumption you'll get a shot at the enemy. If you don't, those TUs are wasted. That's a reason why you might choose not to use RF, but act out your TUs on your own turn.
-
Err, no. TUs are taken from the current turn. See before:
(http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp292/SharkD2161/Support/th_ufoai_reactionfire_before.png) (http://s421.photobucket.com/albums/pp292/SharkD2161/Support/?action=view¤t=ufoai_reactionfire_before.png)
and after:
(http://i421.photobucket.com/albums/pp292/SharkD2161/Support/th_ufoai_reactionfire_after.png) (http://s421.photobucket.com/albums/pp292/SharkD2161/Support/?action=view¤t=ufoai_reactionfire_after.png)
Both pictures were taken in the same turn. The only difference is that in the latter I have two levels of reaction fire enabled.
-
That's because there's a (fixed) TU penalty for enabling RF, docked each turn whether you fire or not. The actual TUs used for firing are taken from the next turn.
-
But in the next turn the TUs are reset to their default. Still not sure what you mean.
-
Okay, here's how it works.
1. You enable RF. You're docked TUs for this.
2. You move (or not), use up TUs for this turn (or not).
3. You end your turn. Your TUs get reset to max as soon as you hit the end turn button.
4. Enemy shows up, your soldier uses RF, uses TUs to do this.
5. It's your turn again. Your soldier now has TUs equal to max - RF penalty - TUs used for firing on enemy's turn.
That's also why you can't move your soldier on your next turn if he spent all his TUs firing on the enemy's turn.
-
Ah, OK. I forgot (or didn't notice) the TUs were subtracted from the next turn. Which is weird because enabling RF also "docks" TUs from the current turn. Also, I thought you could only use the amount of TUs you were docked in the previous round during the RF round. If, instead, the TUs are reset to max, then that makes a big difference!
Once the pathfinding/wonky maps get fixed I will get a better chance to test out the new system to see which I like better.
-
The docking is weird indeed. It's basically an artificial penalty to compensate for the inherent unfairness in the system. The TUs docked are simply void - they aren't used on anything. The current system doesn't do that, but of course your TUs are still wasted if you leave them for RF and then it doesn't happen.
-
as far as my opinion goes, it is the way reaction fire triggers, which can give you a huge fire rate.
you can fire a shot at each 2 time units the enemy moves.
it looks as if it has a probability every time a visible enemy moves and you can also get unlucky, as sometimes the soldier on reaction fire stands idle as if mesmerized by the sight of two of his comrades being butchered in front of him and somehow can not be bothered to pull the trigger.
always makes me think that the soldier must have some kind of fetish about watching people cut into pieces with kerrblades and does not pull the trigger because he is enjoying the view.
i wish this system could be replaced by something more reliable, like trigger after a certain amount of time units used by enemy after the enemy is sighted, and requirement that enemy uses time units equal to firing time units until the reaction fire can trigger again.
sorry, i guess this explanation must have been a mess, i don't know how to say it more clearly atm.
while we are at it, i would like to ask what is it exactly that _you_ think is unfair about the reaction fire system.
-
The way you use your TUs almost exclusively on shooting. In normal (non-RF) gameplay, TUs are spent on moving, turning, ducking, getting back up... And shooting. Clearly, that last part is what you want most, right? Shooting kills things. Turning doesn't. With the old RF, you can theoretically use all of your TUs on shooting if and whenever you have a shot at an enemy during their turn (it doesn't shoot if it can't hit). Didn't get any RF this turn? Don't worry, your TUs are still there, for you to spend on other things as you see fit, and you'll get a full tank of TUs on your next RF opportunity anyway.
So the unfairness comes from the way RF optimizes your TU usage. Again, the fixed penalty is there to compensate, but it really doesn't hold a candle to the saner RF system in 2.3.
-
Honestly, I thought RF reliant opponents in multiplayer were basically setting themselves up for failure between things like the flashbang and grenades. I have never had an issue owning people who did nothing but camp, because that made them predictable, and extremely easy to counter with indirect firepower.
In singleplayer, the aliens just largely avoid you when you attempt to set up RF traps, though this did make them vulnerable to flush out weaponry like said indirect firepower, but that's simply good tactics.