Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 41 to 80 of 80

Thread: new xcom game perspective from a old gamer

  1. #41
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Mindless View Post
    And a rocket launcher that needs to "recharge"!?
    Small point, but we know it at least has an ammo limit, now (looks like they changed it). I hope it doesn't still have a cooldown between shots, though.

  2. #42
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Damage View Post
    Small point, but we know it at least has an ammo limit, now (looks like they changed it). I hope it doesn't still have a cooldown between shots, though.
    Well, I think the fact that you have to spend your action reloading it for the next turn, that would be the "cooldown".

  3. #43
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    We know that's the case for ordinary guns that don't act like class abilities, I'm just saying I hope there's an active reload action instead of a passive ability-style cooldown before an automatic reload for things like the rocket launcher.

  4. #44
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    815
    It was mentioned in one interview that the total number of clips has never really been a factor in X-Com. (I happen to agree)
    So they dropped the pointless chore, reduced the bullet count per clip, and made reloading itself the balancing factor.
    It was also said that it would be important when to reload.

    Sounds to me like it's not some dumb automatic feature. =)

  5. #45
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    I would have preferred they just made alien ammo rarer, more expensive and so on, as I actually liked having clips, enjoying the verisimilitude and inventory menchanics and not minding the "chore" :P. But putting that aside, we've heard reloading mentioned as a replacement for ammo, usually in the context of things that don't have finite ammo any more like projectile weapons, while we've seen one screenshot of a four turn cooldown on a rocket launcher, which has recently been mentioned to have finite ammo. So going by that, and the fact that the rocket launcher has been framed as a heavy-class ability style of thing, and abilities have been mentioned to be cooldown based elsewhere, I'm hoping the cooldown is old news and doesn't apply to the rocket launcher or anything like it at the current stage of development.

  6. #46
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    France
    Posts
    139
    I've read for the rocket launcher will have only one rocket able at the begining, and it will be possible to reload others by the way of developing new abilities from the soldier... maybe the soldier begins stronger and could carrie more..

  7. #47
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,144
    I rarely go any mission other than maybe an alien base or the final fight with more than one spare clip of ammo per trooper (remember I use five and a tank or six). I've always found ammo a virtual non-issue in practicality. The only way it ever got to me is if I forgot to check it during strategic portions. So, I've always found it a chore. If you like it you like it, but I think it'll be a little more impacting than just reloading when out.

  8. #48
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by simoco View Post
    I've read for the rocket launcher will have only one rocket able at the begining, and it will be possible to reload others by the way of developing new abilities from the soldier... maybe the soldier begins stronger and could carrie more..
    Yes, I know, that bit of news is what I'm referring to.

    Inkidu: I also liked being able to arrange my inventory in a TU-efficient manner. Basically, it was one big interplay between discrete clips, TUs and the gridded, battle-available inventory. I'll be looking forward to the inevitable classic mod that restores as much of it as possible, because I'm beyond certain I'm going to miss it in the basic game.

  9. #49
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where d'you think? Sectoid Squishing!
    Posts
    3,528
    One thing I really hated about the TU system was the amount it took to do something basic like take an item from your backpack - I for one certainly won't miss them. As I've said elsewhere, they were a good system, but nothing earth shattering and certainly had a fair few flaws. Undoubtedly the new system will have flaws as well, but to me it sounds like a more fluid and intuitive system. We'll see in a few months.

  10. #50
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Different strokes for different folks. I just don't think they had to flat out remove the strokes they did - inventory TUs or some kind of inventory placement tradeoffs were one of the things that could have been an option, or switched off in a "casual mode". As for being more fluid and intuitive, even if it is, whoop de doo. Said qualities aren't the be-all and end all of game design, and I'd gladly sacrifice a certain amount of them for the flexibility and depth of TUs and a lot of the other missing or streamlined elements, especially where they interacted. Their current system isn't nearly as interesting for me, either in description or in the similarity to other systems I've used, and I'm quite sure that for me it won't be nearly as fun or feel at all like X-Com, and the new elements that the original systems were streamlined out to compensate for just aren't that appealing to me. I'm not afraid of slightly clunky or unintuitive things, but I think TUs could have easily been made acceptably intuitive and fluid anyway, as I've said before. I'm just saying I'll be glad to see any mods that push the game in a more classic direction for those of us who want something closer to the originals.

  11. #51
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Damage View Post
    Different strokes for different folks. I just don't think they had to flat out remove the strokes they did - inventory TUs or some kind of inventory placement tradeoffs were one of the things that could have been an option, or switched off in a "casual mode". As for being more fluid and intuitive, even if it is, whoop de doo. Said qualities aren't the be-all and end all of game design, and I'd gladly sacrifice a certain amount of them for the flexibility and depth of TUs and a lot of the other missing or streamlined elements, especially where they interacted. Their current system isn't nearly as interesting for me, either in description or in the similarity to other systems I've used, and I'm quite sure that for me it won't be nearly as fun or feel at all like X-Com, and the new elements that the original systems were streamlined out to compensate for just aren't that appealing to me. I'm not afraid of slightly clunky or unintuitive things, but I think TUs could have easily been made acceptably intuitive and fluid anyway, as I've said before. I'm just saying I'll be glad to see any mods that push the game in a more classic direction for those of us who want something closer to the originals.
    All I can tell you is that they didn't do it lightly. I'm kind of willing to believe them when they say they tried everything first.

  12. #52
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    And I'm not. Simple as that. But then, I don't think they have said they tried everything first. Just that they "tried TUs". They never mentioned trying new TU interfaces or anything as far as I can recall. They usually just mention that they duplicated the original, after which they usually mention that they then tried their move-action system and found it preferable, and that's where I doubt I'll be agreeing with them.

  13. #53
    It is not like they are inventing something new either, there are already move-action style games out there. e.g. the battle isle series. While I also love these games, they are very different from xcom.

    I think "Battle Isle: Incubation" is pretty much like the system they are getting at, it also has aliens, move-shoot, pre-made maps, small squad (4 I believe), each team member is used as if he had a class (one with heavy wepon, one with rapid fire weapon...) etc. the squad members still got ammo though. Great game! But again definitely different from xcom.

    Now thinking about it, they should used the Battle Isle franchise, maybe they are BI fans in secret and just want to attract the xcom fanbase. joking, kind sad if it were true though

  14. #54
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    148
    Speaking of Incubation, I (vaguely) remember trying it and was kinda sad that I couldn't enjoy it. I was probably comparing it to something like Laser Squad and Jagged Alliance but mostly to X-Com. Battle Isle 2 and 3 had been some of my favourite games after all.. I always treated them as different types of games since you didn't, technically, control single units.

    I remember very little of the game though. 3-4 years after X-Com should have been prime time for a new game to steal my attention but it never did. My memory being what it is (I honestly couldn't have said Incubation had a move-shoot system) I can't really say if that was (one of) my issue with the game but it sure seems so now that I try to imagine it.

    edit: As for making TUs more intuitive, a huge leap forward would have happened by simply displaying the amount of TUs any suggested action would take, like in Jagged Alliance games, while displaying snap/auto/aimed shot costs on your gun icon. They'd still be a bit complex because of how some actions used up a percentage and some didn't, but it would surely have helped, particularly when you aren't yet a veteran of the games to know how much TU it takes to move on all terrains (4 by default, 5, 6, 8, 10 or 12 on some others). Add the energy system on top of course for extra complication.

    Like Brian Damage I do wonder if the devs actually tried everything. Even I'd say 'no' to bringing the TU system into 2012 exactly the same as it was back in 1993. I do trust the system they're implementing is better than TU-1993, but is it better than a refined TU-2012?

  15. #55
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    815
    What made Incubation so short-lived was mostly that it had only a handful of completely static missions.
    A "dumb" campaign, like you'd get in modern games like Starcraft 2.

    X-Com has always had a dynamic campaign where nothing was set in stone and where you could lose a battle without instantly getting the Game Over screen.

    Incubation was also more simplistic in your tactical options. A nice little game but ultimately for the "been there, done that" folder.

  16. #56
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Being View Post
    edit: As for making TUs more intuitive, a huge leap forward would have happened by simply displaying the amount of TUs any suggested action would take, like in Jagged Alliance games, while displaying snap/auto/aimed shot costs on your gun icon. They'd still be a bit complex because of how some actions used up a percentage and some didn't, but it would surely have helped, particularly when you aren't yet a veteran of the games to know how much TU it takes to move on all terrains (4 by default, 5, 6, 8, 10 or 12 on some others). Add the energy system on top of course for extra complication.

    Like Brian Damage I do wonder if the devs actually tried everything. Even I'd say 'no' to bringing the TU system into 2012 exactly the same as it was back in 1993. I do trust the system they're implementing is better than TU-1993, but is it better than a refined TU-2012?
    I'd even accept some streamlining of the actual TU values themselves. The inventory access table was fairly complex, for instance, and could definitely be simplified without losing much of its gameplay impact - maybe something like:

    • hand-to-ground/ground-to-hand = 8
    • hand-to-body/body-to-hand = 4
    • hand-to-pack/pack-to-hand = 16
    • body-to-pack/pack-to-body = 20 (because since you use your hands to manipulate things it would basically be equivalent to body-to-hand-to-pack or vice versa)
    • body-to-ground/ground-to-body = 12 (same reasoning)
    • pack-to-ground/ground-to-pack = 24 (ditto)


    Of course, that's very simplified, and I'd be keen to see "body" further subdivided into "belt" (quick) and "limb pouches" (slower) if the opportunity arose. But the above would be an adequate compromise, if one were needed. Even if the game didn't show you costs in advance (which it probably would - it'd be easy to tag the cost of the proposed action onto the cursor, maybe make it turn yellow if approaching the current TU limit, and red if going over), it's just six values to remember, as opposed to 36-38, maybe not even that if you remember the hand-values and understand the process. Forewarning of the cost to get to an object on the battlefield and pick it up could be worked into an info tooltip that would pop up when you moused over the object in the battlescape view - you'd have the standard path-trace with a TU cost over it, but also a tooltip reminder of the costs to pick up the object once there, phrased as [hands]/[body]/[pack] and coloured white-yellow-red based on the availability of the action in terms of TUs on the point of proposed arrival.

  17. #57
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,144
    The only thing I didn't like about TUs is that you could never really accurately gauge how many TUs were going to get used. Some of it was arbitrary, some of it is a percentage. You plan, you move out, and you inevitably fail because you forgot to factor in the turn two moves back.

  18. #58
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Damage View Post
    Of course, that's very simplified, and I'd be keen to see "body" further subdivided into "belt" (quick) and "limb pouches" (slower) if the opportunity arose.
    You missed the left-handed vs right-handed soldier distinction, which would make the left or right side pockets easier to reach, depending on which soldier does the reaching.
    Roughly 10% of the world's population is left-handed!

  19. #59
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Gazz View Post
    You missed the left-handed vs right-handed soldier distinction, which would make the left or right side pockets easier to reach, depending on which soldier does the reaching.
    Roughly 10% of the world's population is left-handed!
    No, I intentionally left it out since I'd also left out the distinction between near hand and far hand that the original table contained :P.

    Quote Originally Posted by Inkidu View Post
    The only thing I didn't like about TUs is that you could never really accurately gauge how many TUs were going to get used. Some of it was arbitrary, some of it is a percentage. You plan, you move out, and you inevitably fail because you forgot to factor in the turn two moves back.
    Aside from the fact that methods we on the pro-TU side have outlined here and elsewhere are potential ways to mitigate and even avoid the "can't figure out things ahead of time" problem (which didn't even bother all of us) on a per-turn basis, how is your example so different from the potential problems still present in the move-action system? You'll still run up against situations where you can't get quite as far as you thought you could in X consecutive turns, so you have to employ an extra turn to take the cover you wanted or get into the range you want to fire at or try and make the plan work with a non-ideal setup. I don't think things like that are going to be solved by anything short of implementing a system to allow players to input their movement plans turns in advance and then watch them play out, and that's too passive for my tastes, and in any case would be a big tempatation for taking the game towards simultaneous turn based, or even real-time-with pause, neither of which I find appealing.

    As for the difference between arbitrary and percentage, a lot of it actually made sense to me. The movement and inventory rates are constant, because they can both be done faster by quicker people, but the fixed-percentage shot costs at least were more or less based on the handling and firing mechanisms of the guns - it takes a set amount of time to fire three shots from a mechanised rifle, for instance. Granted they could have figured, say, reactions in as a human factor in getting the target lined up, and maybe then allowed a TU bonus on any shots to the same target, and using items like scanners might be a whole different ballgame, but then we really are getting into some potentially complex mechanics.

  20. #60
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Damage View Post
    No, I intentionally left it out since I'd also left out the distinction between near hand and far hand that the original table contained :P.



    Aside from the fact that methods we on the pro-TU side have outlined here and elsewhere are potential ways to mitigate and even avoid the "can't figure out things ahead of time" problem (which didn't even bother all of us) on a per-turn basis, how is your example so different from the potential problems still present in the move-action system? You'll still run up against situations where you can't get quite as far as you thought you could in X consecutive turns, so you have to employ an extra turn to take the cover you wanted or get into the range you want to fire at or try and make the plan work with a non-ideal setup. I don't think things like that are going to be solved by anything short of implementing a system to allow players to input their movement plans turns in advance and then watch them play out, and that's too passive for my tastes, and in any case would be a big tempatation for taking the game towards simultaneous turn based, or even real-time-with pause, neither of which I find appealing.

    As for the difference between arbitrary and percentage, a lot of it actually made sense to me. The movement and inventory rates are constant, because they can both be done faster by quicker people, but the fixed-percentage shot costs at least were more or less based on the handling and firing mechanisms of the guns.
    There's a difference between not being able to get as far as I thought and getting a guy killed over literally one TU because of turn that had to happen, but you forgot to compute.

  21. #61
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    But where's the "forgetting to compute" when the amount of TU's taken to get anywhere and do anything once you're there are visualised cleanly? If you're talking about trying to compute turns in advance, then I'm pretty sure you'll just be running into the same problem in the new system, just with the corners filed off. Even not being able to get as far as you thought can get your guy killed if he can't get to the cover you wanted to target and you were counting on him being there next turn because there's a bunch of aliens moving to target the region you've had to move through on your current turn because of where you were trying to go.

    But all in all, not being able to have my plans go 100% the way I want doesn't bother me at all, since I don't regard any plan as concrete, and I stick to the old adage that "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" anyway :P.

  22. #62
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Location
    Bavaria
    Posts
    815
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Damage View Post
    You'll still run up against situations where you can't get quite as far as you thought you could in X consecutive turns, so you have to employ an extra turn to take the cover you wanted or get into the range you want to fire at or try and make the plan work with a non-ideal setup.
    With the perk system, these are actually less problematic than in X-Com.
    You could use your "action" for running a little farther and reaching cover instead of getting blown to bits out in the open.

    The difference is that you would see up-front if that was necessary or not and can plan your turn around that.

  23. #63
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Gazz View Post
    With the perk system, these are actually less problematic than in X-Com.
    You could use your "action" for running a little farther and reaching cover instead of getting blown to bits out in the open.

    The difference is that you would see up-front if that was necessary or not and can plan your turn around that.
    And yet it's still a disruption of the plan you were working on X turns ahead if you're meaning that in the context of dodging suddenly-revealed enemies, you still run the risk of the run to cover running you into another enemy firecone, if you can see all this up front at the point where you're planning your turn anyway then you can still use TUs in a sensible plan as well and in the case you've given if you're referring to dashing then you're just using the equivalent of the TU's you might have otherwise have used to fire or throw or mindscan anyway - actions are a tradeable commodity, they're not decoupled from movement.

    If you're referring to some hypothetical "extra move action" ability perk (which wouldn't necessarily give you a guarantee of reaching cover anyway if you're in a big open space or you find you've let yourself get surrounded at that point in the extended plan, and without some kind of aforementioned plan-your-turns mechanic is really just replacing having to guess a medium move with having to guess a [small move plus a medium move]/[large move]), then I'll remind you I've never said you couldn't have the perks/abilities and the enhanced interface TUs, anyway (since IIRC the reasoning for the loss of TUs was that people couldn't math and perk at the same time. Make the computer do the math and present it to the human player visually, instead, and I think we can allow both systems). Personally I can take or leave perks, and if we have to have them I'd prefer any implementation of the perks just gave you a static boost or enabled gameplay elements like squad sight, but if you had to have them active, give ones like "sprint" an energy cost so it's a tradeoff between stamina and getting some extra TUs. But then, you could just do something like they did for Apocalypse instead, and have a "run" movement mode that gave a bonus to speed but a big hit to accuracy and energy.
    Last edited by Brian Damage; 03-22-2012 at 10:05 AM.

  24. #64
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Damage View Post
    But where's the "forgetting to compute" when the amount of TU's taken to get anywhere and do anything once you're there are visualised cleanly? If you're talking about trying to compute turns in advance, then I'm pretty sure you'll just be running into the same problem in the new system, just with the corners filed off. Even not being able to get as far as you thought can get your guy killed if he can't get to the cover you wanted to target and you were counting on him being there next turn because there's a bunch of aliens moving to target the region you've had to move through on your current turn because of where you were trying to go.

    But all in all, not being able to have my plans go 100% the way I want doesn't bother me at all, since I don't regard any plan as concrete, and I stick to the old adage that "no plan survives first contact with the enemy" anyway :P.
    Thinking about it a little too much. I'm not talking about game turns, I'm talking about the turns your troops make to look other ways. The game will automatically turn your character to shoot or go a certain way, and it will bank you the points. Yes you could use the reserve actions, but it doesn't always work, because of the percentages. So it's possible to totally forget that one or two point used to turn and be unable to shoot and get blown to bits at the end of the game turn.

  25. #65
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    I had wondered if you meant that but dismissed it. Personally I'd just allow a person to specifically reserve turning TUs as well. Say, 360 degrees of turning. Maybe differentiated angles - like a little split 90-180-360 multi-button. Also, allowing some sort of UFO: After___ style click-and-drag-in-the-direction-you-want-to-face or similar interface element could help when planning your route. Turns in-between, as opposed to at the end of your move, would simply be part of the calculated path.

  26. #66
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,144
    Yeah but when a move can consist of multiple turns it would be easy to forget one or two. It takes up a lot of headspace and then it's easy to forget what you were trying to accomplish in the meta-strategy.

  27. #67
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    That's why I'm arguing for being able to plot movement with a visual display of your path and TUs used - mid-path turns are figured into the TU use and the "you can still do these things" readout for your final destination... the computer remembers them so you don't have to and visualises the result. You could, say, plot waypoints with the left mouse button, and then trigger movement with the right, or by clicking again on the final waypoint, or however you wanted to do it. The computer would show you visually if your next waypoint was viable in terms of placement and facing.

  28. #68
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Damage View Post
    That's why I'm arguing for being able to plot movement with a visual display of your path and TUs used - mid-path turns are figured into the TU use and the "you can still do these things" readout for your final destination... the computer remembers them so you don't have to and visualises the result. You could, say, plot waypoints with the left mouse button, and then trigger movement with the right, or by clicking again on the final waypoint, or however you wanted to do it. The computer would show you visually if your next waypoint was viable in terms of placement and facing.
    I could argue that you don't need that, because it can all be done behind the curtain.

    You move so far, but if you want to go farther you give up the "TUs" for the action.
    I can't prove it, but if soldiers have different firing modes it could be said that they use all their "TUs" for the most efficient use. Say for hypothetical example: A heavy could shoot a large burst with his LMG or put down suppressing fire, which doesn't injure as much but keeps things pinned. Now granted you might have some TUs left over in the first game, but I would posit 4 out of 5 times it's not enough to do a little but move (and honestly I think the new cover system deals with that because that little movement is usually used to move behind a wall).

    Granted. You do lose some extra motion in the new system. However, you get the advantage that you'll never screw up because of a mismanaging of TUs. They're not perfect sides of one another, but I think a lot of the core fun of the system remains.

  29. #69
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Nope. I'd still rather have the flexibility - if I want to fire a TU-lite snapshot or something, or use a cheap autoshot and still have most of my move left, or heck, if I want to simply move after I've fired, which is an elementary thing you can't do by default in the new system. No, I'd much prefer a visualised TU system which would have a lower risk of "mismanaging" TUs and would allow me the flexibility I wanted, or even a streamlined low-number AP-style TU system, but I've said all that before. Even if we didn't have a good visualisation, I'd gladly trade the risk of mucking up the numbers for the flexibility of a TU or AP system. I'll be happy to see the game modded in that direction, and I might even chip in myself if I get the time. As for fun, as I've said before, this system as described is very similar to the movement and action system in Dungeons and Dragons, which I've played for years. I accept that system because I see it as being limited by pen and paper (or pen and whiteboard, or pen and table mat, or whatever :P). When the presence of a computer to keep track of and present it all allows the choice, however, I'd go with something like TUs or Fallout-style Action Points every time, at least for tactical combat games in the 6 - ~20 man scale (with an Apoc-style squad-move option for the higher numbers).
    Last edited by Brian Damage; 03-22-2012 at 03:32 PM.

  30. #70
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Damage View Post
    Nope. I'd still rather have the flexibility - if I want to fire a TU-lite snapshot or something, or use a cheap autoshot and still have most of my move left, or heck, if I want to simply move after I've fired, which is an elementary thing you can't do by default in the new system. No, I'd much prefer a visualised TU system which would have a lower risk of "mismanaging" TUs and would allow me the flexibility I wanted, or even a streamlined low-number AP-style TU system, but I've said all that before. Even if we didn't have a good visualisation, I'd gladly trade the risk of mucking up the numbers for the flexibility of a TU or AP system. I'll be happy to see the game modded in that direction, and I might even chip in myself if I get the time. As for fun, as I've said before, this system as described is very similar to the movement and action system in Dungeons and Dragons, which I've played for years. I accept the system because I see it as being limited by pen and paper (or pen and whiteboard, or pen and table mat, or whatever :P). When the presence of a computer to keep track of and present it all allows the choice, however, I'd go with something like TUs or Fallout-style Action Points every time, at least for tactical combat games in the 6 - ~20 man scale (with an Apoc-style squad-move option for the higher numbers).
    I'd rather not have the screw over possibility. I want my failures to be because of bad tactical choices or personal panic. I don't want it to be because there was a turn I forgot to fact in, or some percentage that keeps it a little fuzzy.

    Plus I don't know, but the move action system seems like you should be able to move and act, or then act and move. That just seems logical.

  31. #71
    I do not think the "Suddenly out of TU" is that big a problem, actually I believe it was mostly associated with moments which many of us remember so fondly. It adds quite a bit tension and surprise.

    And it does not even happen that often. Player normally do not spend all the TU, only in certain situation, like hurry up to help a team mate. In that case he is rushing in blindly and being surprised by an alien is just the risk the player chooses to take.

    A similar situation is when an alien is waiting around the corner and attacks the player right after the player click the end turn button. It is pretty much the same as player running out of TU. In this case it is worse, because player has no choice at all. If we think that is ok, then there is nothing wrong with running out of TU.

    To be honest, I would challenge @Inkidu or anybody to find a complaint about this BEFORE firaxis' announcement during the decade after xcom's release.

    To me it is just a very far fetched and weak argument to justify the new system.

  32. #72
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Inkidu View Post
    I'd rather not have the screw over possibility. I want my failures to be because of bad tactical choices or personal panic. I don't want it to be because there was a turn I forgot to fact in, or some percentage that keeps it a little fuzzy.
    Fair enough, but I'm fine with the risk and as I've said and outlined here, I think a visually enhanced TU system could effectively eliminate such risks - Xenonauts' system is quite an elementary upgrade, for instance, and it works quite well when it comes to things like this. And if it still somehow manages to go down the crapper because your finger hates you or something, just iron-man manually so you can reload a save if you really have to - I wouldn't hold it against you or your ironman-record ; ).

    Plus I don't know, but the move action system seems like you should be able to move and act, or then act and move. That just seems logical.
    It would seem logical to have it like that, wouldn't it? But the answer is "Nope", apparently:

    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Solomon
    So the system is move, and you can either move again, or you can take an action, and of course you can bypass your action entirely by dashing, what we call taking a dash, and that is moving extremely far in one turn
    Quote Originally Posted by Jake Solomon
    [...] There are cases when you can fire and then walk, and so it’s the sort of thing where it’s hard to classify but certainly for rookies, when the rookies start they can do very basic things. Walk, and then shoot, or they could dash [move+move], or they could hunker down [take cover], or they could go into overwatch to do reaction fire
    Square brackets and bolding are my additions.

    "Move and then shoot". They keep phrasing it like that, and when asked, Solomon heavily implies that things like "shoot and then move" and whatnot come later, most likely via perks, which as well as being just plain weird also suggests "moving like a normal person" wil be a special ability of a particular class. Even if they do add "shoot and then move" as a basic ability, though, I'm still keen to one day see the return of shot costs that vary more than just "whole turn/half turn" (which is the case for the sniper, and even then, you still need to spend a perk on snapshots to restore something that's only a rough equivalent to a feature of the original game) :P.

  33. #73
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Damage View Post
    Fair enough, but I'm fine with the risk and as I've said and outlined here, I think a visually enhanced TU system could effectively eliminate such risks - Xenonauts' system is quite an elementary upgrade, for instance, and it works quite well when it comes to things like this. And if it still somehow manages to go down the crapper because your finger hates you or something, just iron-man manually so you can reload a save if you really have to - I wouldn't hold it against you or your ironman-record ; ).



    It would seem logical to have it like that, wouldn't it? But the answer is "Nope", apparently:





    Square brackets and bolding are my additions.

    "Move and then shoot". They keep phrasing it like that, and when asked, Solomon heavily implies that things like "shoot and then move" and whatnot come later, most likely via perks, which as well as being just plain weird also suggests "moving like a normal person" wil be a special ability of a particular class. Even if they do add "shoot and then move" as a basic ability, though, I'm still keen to one day see the return of shot costs that vary more than just "whole turn/half turn" (which is the case for the sniper, and even then, you still need to spend a perk on snapshots to restore something that's only a rough equivalent to a feature of the original game) :P.
    Actually it kind of makes sense that it's a perk. How often does anyone shoot and move in the original.

    Mostly moving's about getting into position to take a shot. To shoot then move would probably bring down additional reaction fire from aliens. Mostly what I do is move shoot, move behind some cover. Which is basically done in the new game by moving into cover, shooting, and ducking back down behind cover.

    Meh...

  34. #74
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Quote Originally Posted by Inkidu View Post
    Actually it kind of makes sense that it's a perk. How often does anyone shoot and move in the original.
    In my experience? Reasonably frequently. For instance if you're in a multi-turn skirmish and you manage to kill the last alien currently visible with a quick, close range blast at the start of your the next turn, leaving you with plenty of TUs to move your guy into a new position. Or if the alien turn left one of the little buggers right in front of you at the end of his turn with an "Oh shi-" look on his face because he saw you too late. Even if it was rarer for me, I'd still rather have it and not need it, than need it, and not have it. And I really can't agree that simply being a less common movement case is grounds for perkhood :P.

  35. #75
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4,144
    Quote Originally Posted by Brian Damage View Post
    In my experience? Reasonably frequently. For instance if you're in a multi-turn skirmish and you manage to kill the last alien currently visible with a quick, close range blast at the start of your the next turn, leaving you with plenty of TUs to move your guy into a new position. Or if the alien turn left one of the little buggers right in front of you at the end of his turn with an "Oh shi-" look on his face because he saw you too late. Even if it was rarer for me, I'd still rather have it and not need it, than need it, and not have it. And I really can't agree that simply being a less common movement case is grounds for perkhood :P.
    Fair enough, but I kind of like the commitment it forces you into. Stay safe or dare and win.

  36. #76
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Melbourne.
    Posts
    1,395
    Well I can't say I see it like that, but whatever you reckon's a fair thing :P. Personally, even if it did force me into some kind of commitment in a way that I found enjoyable (which I doubt would be the case), a mechanic so at odds with my sense of realism would be a recurring irritant. I'm hanging out to get a look at the combat code to see whether it'll be a better first project to promote the whole move-action thing into actual chunky APs, as I've discussed elsewhere, or if it might be better to try and link the movement metering code to an actual TU system and reinstate varying shot types for weapons as distinct TU values on top.

  37. #77
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4
    HI All, I am, like many of you, a long time fan of X-Com. I have played every variation of the X-com brand. SO now that's out of the way. I do have some comments about what I have seen and read about this game so far.

    It has a good grasp of what X-COM was. But it falls short in some areas, to me.
    TU's are gone. I used TU's, as well as the rest of the stats, to determine what role I was going to use that guy in. Tu's was something I was constatnly aware of and enjoyed. It added a dimension to the my squad planning as well as to my tactics. Loosing this looses major section of how the game made me think and play. It looses some of what it was to be playing X-COM.
    Soldiers having roles is not a bad plan, but If I can't choose what each soldier role is going to be then I will not be in control of my team. In X-COM, I could look at the stats of person and decide on a role for them. But it was not the only way I picked those roles. I also looked at my overall makeup of the team to fill the gaps that are missing in my mind. And I since I could influence what stats got increased by the actions they took in a mission, I also manipulated those team members into roles that I wanted them to take. My usual corse of action was to make low TU guys my background medics and human minesweepers, having them run all over the map till thier TU's got high enough to be good at some other role. Low dex guys were used to cary heavy weapons, whether they had the strentgh or not. High dex guys got the most accurate weapons. Everybody caried grenades and heal packs. guys with high stamina I used as scouts, just beacuse they were more likely to get shot in the course of the mission. I liked this ability to mold those soldiers into what I wanted them to be. This game seems to be forcing roles onto me. This choice decreases my choices.
    6 man squads? Really?? I loved having the large numbers going on missions, it meant I had more options. And since every one of the guys, besides rookies, had been on missions, I had grown attached to them. They were important and I loved trying to figure out just how to keep them all alive while doing the mission. In the beginning of the game we are out teched, so numbers is the only advantage we had. As the game progresses, our tech catches up, and so to does thier numbers ending with a fairly even battle at end where only your guys experience and your tactical planing is the advantage. Caping us well remove this element of the X-COM build up, loosing the joy of how to reduce your high body count of personnel while still completing the missions. With less guys, your tactics will kill your team outright if youy encounter an alien for the first time, as you won't have the bodies to try out all the possibilites to find just the right thing to do.
    With only one troop base to work with, it means that you base placement is not going to be very vanilla. As every one will place thier base in the location that maximizes coverage for the least trip time. Or is travel time to mission sites being removed? If that is the case, then they lost out on a very big portion of why multiple bases were needed, and reduced options for game play. I always like to build bases on where the money was coming from. As contries spent more money on me, they got better bases and coverage. I tried to cover the lesser countries but I would let them join the aliens just so that I could maximize my base placement. And multiple bases meant I had manage my resources very efficeintly in order to get all of the bases to peak capabilities while trying to cover the whole world.
    Hand crafted maps are good for bases and ships. But for wilderness and town missions random would be better. Or pretty soon I will know the entire layout of every map and the mystery of where the guys might be hiding will be gone. Since I would know the map. I won't have to split up and search, I will just use my knowledge to come around to the weak point of the defensive position and maximize my cover to for easy take downs. And loose that edge-of-my-seat feeling that the old X-COM random maps gave me every time.
    Visually I like the direction they have gone, the aliens look cool. The addition of the Thin Men are cool too. Starting of the skyranger for the mission is fine idea, it does remove the danger of entering a mission, but it was something that could have been done better than it had been. Would have been nicer to have kept that portion of play and allowed us the ability to order the load in the skyranger. But that is something I consider as minor.
    Clips. Clips need to be there. Clips took resources to make them. Clips were lost of the area was completely destroyed. Sometime I didn't have enough clips to go around and different stages of the game and so had to either improvise or use lesser effective weapons. Clips complicated the game and were a important consideration for the early game as I would run out of ammo on guys who were really bad shots. So grenades became important to be caried on those guys. And my heavies always carried a back up weapon just incase they ran out of shots. It was all part of my strategic and tactical planing. Loosing clips takes alot of thought out of the game.

    All in all, the game looks good, but it seems like it's becoming a dumbed down version of the game that I love with a shiney new paint job. I hope they don't take away all of the research options and such too. because I liked researching everything and having it all available to me. Allowed me to create some really quirky stratetigies that worked real well.

    Enough rambling for my first post. I hope I was not offensive to anyone sensibilites. And if I was, sorry, but this is my opinion and I stand by it.

  38. #78
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    635
    Hello Zombee. Your sentiments are shared by many around here. Welcome to the forums.

  39. #79
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    Where d'you think? Sectoid Squishing!
    Posts
    3,528
    Holy Wall of Text, Batman! Break it up with some lines inbetween paragraphs!

  40. #80
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    4
    LOL.. This little screen doesn't give that big of view. Sorry...

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •