3 Things to Change Back... (v2.4 suggestion)

[danninemx]

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.   

[haveimooed]

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.   

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.

[ViolentAJ]

I cosign these suggestions.

[Duke]

@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.

[kurja]

@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?

[Duke]

exactly.

[haveimooed]

@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?

[geisthund]

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.

[ShipIt]

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.

[haveimooed]

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.)

[Duke]

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 ??

[Duke]

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

[ShipIt]

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.

[Kardell]

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.

[ShipIt]

... 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.