UFO:Alien Invasion
General => Discussion => Topic started by: danninemx on May 02, 2012, 11:46:31 pm
-
I updated from 2.3.1 to 2.4 only days ago. So far, I am enjoying many new impressive changes.
That said, here are some strange (i.e. bad) changes I noticed:
1. COUNTRIES GIVE UP WAY TOO EASILY
: In 2.3.1, I have never seen a country give up on me. Whenever it would approach "Giving Up" ("Mad", "Upset", etc.), I would sell them UFO and they would respond well.
In 2.4, the approval rating changes all of a sudden and for no apparent reason. My first 2 campaigns came to an abrupt end because apparently I wasn't keeping them happy. I really don't get it though, because my approval rates were all pretty high, and I never lost a battle with aliens. Even worse, the settings were "EASY" and "EASIEST", respectively.
2. REACTION FIRE DOES NOT WORK WELL
: In 2.3.1, I could pretty much count on my troops to initiate attack on moving targets upon appearance.
In 2.4, rarely do they react to enemy appearance, even when they are fairly experienced (upgraded). Sometimes, the aliens would simply walk past my troops, and neither side would do anything. I don't know how exactly this was changed, but frankly, this engagement dynamic was better in 2.3.1. The latest version feels broken. (Or was the idea that aliens simply have better motor skills than humans do?)
3. FORCED BASE BATTLE -- WHY?
: Didn't 2.3.1 have auto-battle option for when aliens invade the base?
It was fresh and fun for the first couple of times, but in the end, you don't change the base that much. This means each time an invasion occurs, you have to re-do the exact same moves you made last time. It just gets boring and meaningless. Could the auto-fight option somehow be enabled?
Thanks again to the team for the great new version, and I look forward to viewing public comments on these points. :D
-
I updated from 2.3.1 to 2.4 only days ago. So far, I am enjoying many new impressive changes.
That said, here are some strange (i.e. bad) changes I noticed:
[..]
3. FORCED BASE BATTLE -- WHY?
: Didn't 2.3.1 have auto-battle option for when aliens invade the base?
It was fresh and fun for the first couple of times, but in the end, you don't change the base that much. This means each time an invasion occurs, you have to re-do the exact same moves you made last time. It just gets boring and meaningless. Could the auto-fight option somehow be enabled?
Thanks again to the team for the great new version, and I look forward to viewing public comments on these points. :D
Hello, new player here. I would like also to ask for an option to have all battles to autoresolve. It really becomes very boring and time consuming after few times, to the point that I rather quit the game after repeated base invasion than battle again.
-
I cosign these suggestions.
-
@danninemx:
I know about the 'walking past RF soldiers' issue. And I'll be working on that ;)
Also unlike in 2.3, RF is *fair* now (i.e. TU based). Keep that in mind...
@haveimooed:
battlescape is the *core* of UFO:AI imho. Sorry to say it, but if you use automission by default, this is not *your* game.
-
@danninemx:
I know about the 'walking past RF soldiers' issue. And I'll be working on that ;)
Also unlike in 2.3, RF is *fair* now (i.e. TU based). Keep that in mind...
What do you mean, "fair / tu based"? That the faster action (that needs less tu's) happens first?
-
exactly.
-
@danninemx:
I know about the 'walking past RF soldiers' issue. And I'll be working on that ;)
Also unlike in 2.3, RF is *fair* now (i.e. TU based). Keep that in mind...
@haveimooed:
battlescape is the *core* of UFO:AI imho. Sorry to say it, but if you use automission by default, this is not *your* game.
Why not allow a player to choose what is a core of the game for him?
-
hmm. that's actually a good question.
I guess it's like any other product design project : it depends who the team is designing the product for - a user, or themselves.
In this case they are designing it for themselves on the assumption that other users will feel the same way about their product. However the other user group is people who used to play the X-com games... which had a battlescape thing going. X-com achieved critical following in its day, so we know the user base was large, and will probably still be substantial once this spreads laterally.
So in that sense, you aren't really important because you aren't the correct user-base. (people like the program team) That's why you don't get to decide... this isn't a design project to fit the general user.
-
hmm. that's actually a good question.
I guess it's like any other product design project : it depends who the team is designing the product for - a user, or themselves.
In this case they are designing it for themselves on the assumption that other users will feel the same way about their product. However the other user group is people who used to play the X-com games... which had a battlescape thing going. X-com achieved critical following in its day, so we know the user base was large, and will probably still be substantial once this spreads laterally.
So in that sense, you aren't really important because you aren't the correct user-base. (people like the program team) That's why you don't get to decide... this isn't a design project to fit the general user.
Although pretty close, its still not worth a faceplam pic. Try harder.
-
Allowing to have battles autosolved would not take away the option to have them played manually for the "correct" user base or general user. (I am not asking to *force* autoresolve for everyone. I am just asking for an option, so everyone could choose what they want.)
-
Allowing to have battles autosolved would not take away the option to have them played manually for the "correct" user base or general user. (I am not asking to *force* autoresolve for everyone. I am just asking for an option, so everyone could choose what they want.)
Actually, I don't know whether the missing autoresolve is simply a small bug or due to some difficulties in implementing it.
At least I don't know of any policy decision to force baseattack missions to be played.
geever ??
-
btw @ShipIt, I think you misunderstood geisthund.
What I read from his post is: UFO isn't targeted at the current mainstream users, but instead at the old X-Com fans. And that's perfectly true imho.
Maybe it was the term "...designing it for themselves" was the culprit.
@geisthund: the devs very rarely get to play the game themselves ;)
-
btw @ShipIt, I think you misunderstood geisthund.
I did read it again. Not getting any better. So I go with my opinion.
@geisthund: the devs very rarely get to play the game themselves ;)
I started the campaing right after the 2.4 release and played from start to (nearly) end. Can´t find the alien base and did not find out how to get the XVI research yet. Played nearly 200 missions without autoresolve and still have fun with it. This game is great and getting better ervery day. It is worth playing, and it is worth contributing instead typing walls of nonsense text.
-
As long as the game follows old X-com and missions become more sopfisticated after every release there is no need to waste time to develop extra features - wishes of some of the players/forum members.
X-com is geo-strategy, but the core thing of the game is turn-based fight, so automission should IMHO receive penalties to discourage player from using it.
We should concentrate how to support developers to let them create bigger maps with more dense environment and provide thriller feeling of the game for me the best known from UFO Xcom Underwater, so around version 3.0 of UFO:AI I finally play a mission like terror one that takes place on a cargo or passenger ship, where my 10 ppl squad has to split to 5 duos to be able to check every room, cabin and finally the engine room on time! It takes time, but builds up damn good thriller.
And another thing! I love the current soundtracks, however is there any way to reverse engineer the old soundtracks and use them as an alternative? I think these were the most appropriate and created proper audio experience, crunching doors and quite poor sounds, but the most accurate imho.
The second more important thing missing in the game is fog of war.
So you don't know how many buildings are there, where is the entrance, how many rooms and what is the color of the sofa. This makes the game less predictable and provides better exploration experience. You won't see the alien craft and you don't know in what direction how many ppl to dispatch. Even small maps become more exciting imho. Motion detectors proposed earlier in some other topic were cool as well.
-
... there is no need to waste time to develop extra features - wishes of some of the players/forum members.
Developing extra features is not a waste of time. I am quite sure no dev thinks like that. And everybody in the team wants to give the players as much X-Com as possible.
X-com is geo-strategy, but the core thing of the game is turn-based fight, so automission should IMHO receive penalties to discourage player from using it.
Imo it would be better to make the autoresolve possible as a standard and counter this by rewarding the players that don´t use it.
Also, I would add the probability of a landed UFO escaping when the mission is played on autoresolve.
-
Developing extra features is not a waste of time. I am quite sure no dev thinks like that. And everybody in the team wants to give the players as much X-Com as possible.
Imo it would be better to make the autoresolve possible as a standard and counter this by rewarding the players that don´t use it.
I recall a recent thread in the feature request forum about exactly this ;)
-
I recall a recent thread in the feature request forum about exactly this ;)
There is difference between 'adding a feature' and 'changing the game design' imo.
-
And another thing! I love the current soundtracks, however is there any way to reverse engineer the old soundtracks and use them as an alternative? I think these were the most appropriate and created proper audio experience, crunching doors and quite poor sounds, but the most accurate imho.
From X-Com? No. That would have legal issues.
-geever
-
There is difference between 'adding a feature' and 'changing the game design' imo.
I'm sorry, I don't quite get the "changing the game design" part. Any change or addition is, in a way, changing the game design, changing how the game is played, no? Also, the feature suggested in that thread would not by any means have been game play-wise a major change - we already have autoplay but not available in all missions, it would just have been a different "front" to it.
I probably sound like I'm whining because not everyone loves the idea, if it doesn't get support it won't get added and that's okay but I'd like to understand the reasoning of those who oppose it because I thought it was actually a good idea.
-
I probably sound like I'm whining because not everyone loves the idea, if it doesn't get support it won't get added and that's okay but I'd like to understand the reasoning of those who oppose it because I thought it was actually a good idea.
Explaining and defending an idea is not whining for me.
the feature suggested in that thread would not by any means have been game play-wise a major change - we already have autoplay but not available in all missions, it would just have been a different "front" to it.
The automission is done by your soldiers, you get all the loot to sell or research. Your soldiers gain experience for the tactical part and the commander (you) gains money for the strategical part. If you dont get experience/money, because the mission is 'outsourced', this will affect game balancing in a reasonable way. Thats why I thought it is more than just adding a feature.
-
You're right. On the other hand, getting "penalized" in the ways you just mentioned wouldn't seem like a bad thing either.
-
You're right. On the other hand, getting "penalized" in the ways you just mentioned wouldn't seem like a bad thing either.
The bad thing would be : player uses this feature -> player gets overhelmed by the growing alien interest and loses game because he used the feature -> player does not use the feature anymore because it leads to losing the game. Can you see my point ?
-
Yes. Like anything else in the game, if misused or played poorly, will lead to an unhappy ending for the player's campaign. I don't see a problem with that. Are there currently any side effects from using the autoresolve? I recall there was some talk about it affecting nation happiness, do you know if this is true?
-
Yes. Like anything else in the game, if misused or played poorly, will lead to an unhappy ending for the player's campaign. I don't see a problem with that. Are there currently any side effects from using the autoresolve? I recall there was some talk about it affecting nation happiness, do you know if this is true?
I am not very familar with that. But I am quite sure the only drawback is soldiers gain less experience when you do automission.
-
What about the killed civilians? I think they reduce the nation happyness.
-
I like the idea of updating autoresolve with an "outsource mission" option.
This is not UFO:EU, On harder difficulties you have a very limited access to soldiers, if your team gets badly mauled in a terror mission and you then shoot down a UFO for example, you will probably prefer to auto resolve the mission to give your team time to recover.
On the other hand it needs an element of balance to stop abuse, this is after all a game and not an interactive novel but it needs to make sense in the story told, if the auto resolve becomes leave it to local forces (ala UFO: Aftermath) it then brings into play several potential penalties which have been suggested. Auto resolve needs to be an option used sparingly by the player when they are having an excessively hard time and need to give their teams a chance to recover health or manufacture equipment/replacement ammo. Story critical missions should also be limited so the player cant auto it.
On the national rating scheme, the player is there as Earth's answer to the alien threat so any deferred mission result should not help PHALANX's reputation and anything where it goes bad for should hammer the player, I was thinking something like
Player Tackles the mission and wins = +1 to national opinion
Player Requests Local deal with mission and they win = No change to national opinion
Player Tackles the mission and looses = -1 to national opinion
Player Requests Local deal with mission and they loose = -2 to national opinion
Player ignores the mission and it disappears = -3 to national opinion because the player should have acted in some way, even if it's to defer it.
As for salvage I think that the player should not directly benefit from it but perhaps a random selection could be added the market for the player to purchase, though if the mission is a loss then the nation keeps all salvage.
and before geever starts yes it will be a lot of work, but at the same time the current implementation feels like a stopgap.
-
I especially like the insinuation that Geever eventually will begin work on this ;)
-
/me facepalms
-
/me facepalms
What is wrong about using a nice pic for this? Like we did in the old days. :)
-
atm I am putting my time into the Hyperion :P
-
atm I am putting my time into the Hyperion :P
Its really great to see the progress in that. But there should always be enough time to place a pic if there is need to. ;)
-
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000225443/polls_give_20up_20cat_20pics_2359_401931_poll_xlarge.jpeg)
-
On the other hand it needs an element of balance to stop abuse
Does it, though? The geoscape game simply isn't very deep, so aside from the occasional player with odd taste it seems like if you don't want to play the tactical missions you're probably pretty close to just switching to Tetris or something anyway. Especially as it stands, where there are long stretches where all techs are researched, the aliens aren't throwing anything new at you, and there's just mission after mission after mission, allowing pretty much free use of automissions provides a solution for those people who aren't motivated to learn the debug command to set the interestlevel.
~J
-
(http://images.sodahead.com/polls/000225443/polls_give_20up_20cat_20pics_2359_401931_poll_xlarge.jpeg)
o7
-
Developing extra features is not a waste of time. I am quite sure no dev thinks like that. And everybody in the team wants to give the players as much X-Com as possible.
So for me please:
- fog of war, so when I open the door to the dark room my visual range is the beam of light coming from that door,
- destructible walls, so I can use plasma rifle to make an extra entrance on demand,
Imo it would be better to make the autoresolve possible as a standard and counter this by rewarding the players that don´t use it.
Also, I would add the probability of a landed UFO escaping when the mission is played on autoresolve.
or yes, good idea, but please no skipping terror missions and base invasions.
From X-Com? No. That would have legal issues.
-geever
I am wondering if there is any access to the music sheets, so I can play and record these soundtracks on my Yamaha. Actually I should do this without any sheets.
Otherwise it will take a while before it goes to the public domain. Or to avoid legal issues make it available to download independently like the videos for Warzone2100.
-
- destructible walls, so I can use plasma rifle to make an extra entrance on demand
Well thats a good running gag around the forum here - hehe. ;)
I am wondering if there is any access to the music sheets, so I can play and record these soundtracks on my Yamaha. Actually I should do this without any sheets.
The original music was in midi format (EU,TFTD) - no need to replay things. That means you can remaster the midis with VSTIs but i wont do this, iam happy with the current soundtrack and my tracks i composed for this project. Of course you can do it your self and release it as a mod if it doesnt infringe any copyrights.
-
By the way Crystan where do you usually play in the weekends, Sat nights?
-
By the way Crystan where do you usually play in the weekends, Sat nights?
Sorry, I dont understand the question. What do you want to know exactly?
-
Sorry, I dont understand the question. What do you want to know exactly?
Sorry I meant dJing.
Who is Venethian? I think I've seen him in the credits as Music by
-
Iam not a DJ - iam a composer (using a digital audio workstation) and sound designer.I compose music whenever iam in the mood for it. ;) Venethian was a member of the initial Team (before 2.3 - probably even earlier - dont know much about the history of UFO:AI). He composed 6 tracks (http://ufoai.org/licenses/music/license-cc-by-30.html) for UFO:AI. If you want to listen to my songs, you can DL them here (http://www.indiedb.com/members/crystan/downloads/ufo-ai-crystan-ost).
-
Iam not a DJ - iam a composer (using a digital audio workstation) and sound designer.I compose music whenever iam in the mood for it. ;) Venethian was a member of the initial Team (before 2.3 - probably even earlier - dont know much about the history of UFO:AI). He composed 6 tracks (http://ufoai.org/licenses/music/license-cc-by-30.html) for UFO:AI. If you want to listen to my songs, you can DL them here (http://www.indiedb.com/members/crystan/downloads/ufo-ai-crystan-ost).
Cool. Thanks for links.
I like yours Geosphere02 & 04. I hear some elements reaching far to Jean M. Jarre, some other characteristic for around 2000 trance music.
I like Venethian's electric guitar what reminds me music from Oni game.
Good job, carry on!
-
Chiming in on the side that if the battlescape is too boring, then the game probably isn't your forte. The battlescape is the game. If you take that out and autoresolve everything, I can't see where the game is even remotely exciting. I know, to each his own, and they certainly want everyone they can to enjoy themselves to grow the community, but it just seems awkward.
That said, I do see their point that most battle maps are too repetitive, and the base maps were big and played out mostly the same way... especially if you lay all your bases out the same way. There needs to be more randomness in them, with different tactics to make things a bit more interesting. Thinking back on XCOM, base defenses were often exciting because the aliens wouldn't always do everything the same way. They varied their pathing and you had to be pretty careful about them sneaking up behind you. You could force them into predictable patterns, but that required some planning.
And thinking back on XCOM again... you didn't have an autoresolve option, yet we loved it and played through them all.
The best maps to me were the small, quick open fire shootouts that had the most suspense in them. I enjoyed the city hunts and base maps, but again, aliens tended to always show up in the same place. I only hit this map once in my last game, but there was one small city map that had about 12 aliens in it who just kept coming. I think that was my favorite map.
-
Cool. Thanks for links.
I like yours Geosphere02 & 04. I hear some elements reaching far to Jean M. Jarre, some other characteristic for around 2000 trance music.
I like Venethian's electric guitar what reminds me music from Oni game.
Good job, carry on!
Agree. The music in 2.4 is excellent. A significant upgrade to the game. Well done!
-
:)
-
I did read it again. Not getting any better. So I go with my opinion.
Apologies if I offended you, although I can't for the life of me figure out why. :\
I happen to fall in the group of the privileged people who played the original X-com games, and I'm one of the people happy with UFO AI for its faithfulness to the spirit of the game :\
I was attempting to explain to... whoever it was... why he felt marginalized. Because, in plain english, the game isn't for him.
But sure, go ahead and do the whole jeering facepalm thing without seeking clarity from the person you're attempting to ridicule, why don't you.
No big loss to either of us. I still get to play UFO:AI :)