Messages

181

Tactics / Re: As capturing aliens living (with that weapon)

« on: March 20, 2008, 03:43:49 pm »

Maybe the melee discussion could be included to have a chance to stun/"cripple" an alien with a melee weapon (so he can be captured)? I'd imagine that a strong hit on the head might stun an alien, even with a sword (if it doesnt cut through the head that is )

182

Discussion / Re: X-Com veteran's initial impressions...

« on: March 19, 2008, 04:04:14 pm »

The difference to full-scale war is that the aliens do not come with many ships. They try to be sneaky and corrupt governments and stuff.

The soldiers should be more thought of as warriors that are specifically trained to combat aliens (remember the psi powers they had in the original, i dont think every human having psi powers is "normal" ;-) )

183

Tactics / Re: What about cash???

« on: March 19, 2008, 04:01:27 pm »

Right now I have a lot of cash.

I think it would be cool if we could pay "bonus" to researchers and manufactures to improve their
productivity (not to soldiers though)

For example, if you pay 100.000 dollars, the scientiests on a specific project will research
a bit faster. Lets say by +10%  (it should not be much, but it should still be enough that
paying that sum will be of benefit to you, i.e. if you have a lot of cash and dont know what
to do with it)

184

Tactics / Re: how to intercept alien's movement?

« on: March 19, 2008, 03:59:52 pm »

Personally, if my soldiers are under cover, i typically only move a few steps, kneel down, and have the mode set to multiple shots

185

Feature Requests / Re: Template for soldier equipment

« on: March 19, 2008, 03:56:14 pm »

I support this idea. I have seen this used in some Xbox games and it has simplified choices (i think you can modify these templates too)
quickly.

I myself find that I often switch weapons lateron in UFO:AI (to test them etc), and then when I am lazy I dont remove the ammu always.
And sometimes my grenade launching guy dies, in which case I would like to have a template ready to replace him with all the equip
he carries.

"I think templates are not such a good idea. Let's not be lazy and further more indivual item placement is on of the charms of the game."

Templates would I believe in this case be an ADDITIONAL option, you could still use individual item placement/selection.

I do not think that having an option for templates would ruin the charm of the game, but in case people never want to use a template,
there could be an option in the configure menu to specifically enable/disable it, to make everyone happy as they can select how to "play".


"Let's not be lazy" should not be a synonym to make the game harder to play.  Templates could simplify the game a tiny bit and thus would be a good idea.

186

Discussion / Re: AI versus "logical choices"

« on: March 15, 2008, 11:26:32 am »

I have noticed something else.

This is not so much a bug, but a "weirdness".

The aliens seem to behave in a predictable manner.
Lets take the rome map. It is a rather difficult map, with two bridges, and a
very long area. You can sneak from house to house. Then, once you reached the
other side, the aliens will in like 80% of the cases, aggregate in one building.

You can kill them all one by one by moving outside your cover, shoot at them,
and move back again to cover. The aliens will in most situations never leave
this place.

There is more weirdness actually, the aliens will tend to aggregate in certain
hotspots of maps. I think in some time I will know all their pattern and choose
the best situation to snipe em (that being said, i sometimes make mistakes and
an alien gets one of my guys... cover is really vital)

187

Discussion / Re: Melee attacks -- roadmap?

« on: March 12, 2008, 10:34:07 pm »

but you should also take into consideration that long weapons make great hand-to-hand weapons for blocking knives, or delivering blunt trauma, which could possibly stun an opponent.

I think that should depend formost on the available TU

if someone moved all his TU, then how could he still defend as good as someone who is cautiously and slowly moving around (and thus has more TU left)? I think the guy that is cautious would be better at defending against melee

Anyway I totally support melee combat getting a boost. Right now its kinda useless and i think this is sad. Yeah a kerr blade kills my guys happily, but the alien normally ends up next to my guy too and gets shot down, which is less effective for the aliens than a guy with a long range that snipes my guy and goes back into cover again :>

188

Discussion / Re: Weapons jamming

« on: March 12, 2008, 10:30:43 pm »

I think Jamming could be fun and should be part of the game, although at a very low rate

And I think secondary weapons outrule primary weapons except on tough aliens and difficult maps >

189

Tactics / Re: Use of flamethrower

« on: March 12, 2008, 10:27:02 pm »

I think flamethrower is cool, but i have given up on it. My guys tend to get killed too easily, and I cant rely fully on reaction fire (sometimes 2 or 3 aliens run out from a room...)

swanwarrior, i really wonder how you can apply this on every map. There are a few maps where I dont think a flamethrower makes any sense.

190

Discussion / Weapon Balancing

« on: March 12, 2008, 10:23:44 pm »

I think a few weapons are unbalanced. Take knife.
Its very difficult to sneak up on aliens.

Flame thrower:
its big fun (though I would love to break wooden walls with it) but the problem is you really need to kinda move right up to the enemy... Maybe the range should be extended, or more target squares should be combatted with it. Also i think inferno sweep and inferno is too similar

Grenade launcher:
I think this is a very good weapon actually, you can kill groups of aliens rather nicely with it but the range part is REALLY killing the weapon. Later in the game, the long rifles just pick my guys apart. It makes no sense to run around with a weapon that has such a low range. Sure, you may use it when the map has many buildings etc.. but there are simply better overall weapons imho

Pistol:
I am fine with it, but maybe single shots could be made cheaper?

Bolt Rifle:
Cannonade is very cool, no complaint. The snapshot and precision shot however is kinda annoying... I think it could need a slight boost. But I am ok with it as it is.

Sniper Rifle:
Sorry, it sucks. Headshot takes up 24 points? And normal movement is 31, so what am I supposed to do, take a position somewhere on the map.. and wait. But the aliens will shoot at me too and hit me much easier with their long range weapons...  and if i actually move, i can do only one shot, which normally miss. Compare this to a weapon that can fire multiple times.

Grenades:
Not sure... they kinda roll around and miss too often, and they block a hand, thus preventing the use of a normal weapon kinda...

Submachine gun:
This is kinda the best weapon, even though its only secondary.
I can fire SO MANY SHOTS with it, i can happily use reaction fire... yes, it doesnt do a lot of damage, but i think firing SO MUCH is simply better. sooner or later the alien just is dead.

Missile thrower:
I think its underpowered. The exploding missile hardly kills an alien on first shot for me. And reloading takes a lot of points... and we cant destroy buildings with it... and there are no waypoints... and, well actually, the other weapons are just better!

Not sure about the other weapons... I am not yet an expert but i think the machine gun is useless, especially compared to assault rifle (which is much better) and the submachine gun is a lot better than the machine gun too.


I think these issues should be considered. It would be cool if weapons that are too similar could be modified a bit to reflect different needs. I would also like to see a somewhat heavier pistol-type weapon. Something like a huge desert eagle or magnum or something, maybe with a bit longer range and power but heavier handling cost.
Also what could be fun, a kinda whip that has a limited range (but higher than knife). Something like an ultra-thin whip but supersharp... guess you know what i mean

Anyway, in general I am ok with the weapons because I get to choose - and not elect those weapons that I feel are less useful

191

Discussion / Re: love the game

« on: March 07, 2008, 11:01:47 pm »

I like the forum a lot.

I think the game needs a little bit more polish, but the forums are kinda very lively and nice. That is a very good thing IMO.

192

Discussion / Re: "Heavy Equipment" button

« on: March 07, 2008, 11:00:08 pm »

maybe a reprogrammed bloodspider.

Whoa cool, didnt think of that!

I was aware of the original "tank"-support and I liked it, especially when i didnt want to risk
my soldiers... but a reprogrammed alien sounds kinda cooler

193

FAQ / Re: No more UFOs

« on: March 07, 2008, 10:57:52 pm »

Maybe there should be a way to notify the user that this is "not normal" or something...

194

Discussion / Re: Nicknames for soldiers

« on: March 07, 2008, 10:57:16 pm »

I agree partially.

- I do not think this should be mandatory, as the thread starter implied.

But I also agree that people might have a real name, and might choose to either get a new name, and/or have a nickname.

Actually especially the nickname part is why i post here

I sometimes rename my best guys i.e. give him the name "ELITE" and "ELITE2" etc... so I know when to be ultra-pissed when an alien kills him ... but of course when renaming him ELITE, i will forget his old name ...

195

Design / Re: CURRENT STORYLINE -- SPOILERS!

« on: March 01, 2008, 02:16:54 pm »

'You can't define "fittest" in any testable, concrete way... at best you have a tautology: "the fittest" = "those who survive long enough to reproduce the most" ...  therefore we just have a single, self-evident statement-- not something testable or falsifiable.'

No. Fittest means how many (viable) offspring one individual will create, so it is a quantifiable trait. I do not understand where you get this equation from.

The equation is:
-> The more viable offspring = the fitter one is.

Not vice versa. It is a simple manner of counting, nothing more.

As long as no offspring were created, the fitness will be 0. (The offspring need to be viable, because otherwise they could not reproduce and thus could not on their own create offspring, so one needs to look if they can create offspring too. It would mean the end of a given species if their fitness would become 0. When the dinosaur became extinct, for whatever reasons that happened, their fitness became 0 as well. It is that simple, but it is also a concept which does not EXPLAIN a whole lot).

If a guinea pig has 0 offspring, the fitness is 0 too, and thus it is "not fit". But you would need to analyze why it is not fit. For example, a guinea pig in a cage normally has a real fitness of 0, because it will probably not be allowed to mate. Or take poisoning in the food chain as an example, i.e. biomagnification
of DDT  in indian vultures's eating sheep,  or estrogen hormone levels in ponds affecting frogs or humans.

The term fitness applies to reproduction.

However, with that beind said, the term

"natural selection"

is even more problematic than fitness, because natural selection is just a lazy word for describing MANY different things altogether. I dont like this term. There is nothing "natural" about it, it just happens because of many DIFFERENT reasons.
And "Selection" is also not really important, because as long as either some offspring survive and reproduce, or there are other mates in your population, it hardly matters.

As a concept, "natural selection" does not explain a lot.  Only "intelligent design" or "life-arrived-from-outside-planet-earth" are more annoying. Both explain 0. They just state something which you can never verify. (Although I believe at some later point we can proof how "life" emerged. My theory is that the molecular machinery came into existance in the deep sea with Ribosomes that folded inside of liposomes using some cationic metal factors ... maybe sulphuryl-bonds. Chemistry will be able to answer that more accurately, after all life is nothing than a few genes and enzymes in a compound called a cell capable of setting together ATP and nucleotides)

What would be a LOT better as a concept would be co-evolution. This way you could exactly describe why certain birds have such a beak, and certain others a different beak.