KickStarter Phoenix Point - the new game from X-COM creator Julian Gollop

[ArchAngel]

Also I must say I really don't like the chance to kill UI element... basically makes the game more simple. Xcom 2 had an option to turn off enemy health, can PP get a similar option but that one also turns off the chance to kill UI?

 

[Mazisky]

I've just discovered the game runs in Unity, how they managed to make it look like Unreal engine lel. It's a compliment

 

[ArchAngel]

I've just discovered the game runs in Unity, how they managed to make it look like Unreal engine lel. It's a compliment

Check out Escape From Tarkov then come back and tell me if you think it was made in Unity

 

[MicoSelva]

I have not followed this game previously, but I have watched the pre-alpha gameplay video during today's commute (no, I wasn't driving). It looks more interesting than nu-XCOM (I haven't tried nu-XCOM2: Electric Boogaloo), but it is obvious that the game still has a long way to go before it is ready for shipping.

FWIW, I have literally fallen asleep while watching the demo. I am not sure if Phoenix Point was at fault here, since I also had trouble sleeping last night. Jury is still out on this one.

 

[HansDampf]

What makes you think it wants to differentiate itself from XCOM (at least in terms of presentation)? It's obvious Gollop wants to piggyback on the success of nuXCOM, a level of success he never had with his own games. I doubt most nuXCOM players even played the original X-COM game and if they did, I doubt they cared for its more simulationist design.

Doesn't seem like a good strategy, assuming most of their backers expect something like old X-COM (Apocalypse), and most nuXCOM players see it as a ripoff.
It's also just a case of me whining because I personally don't like this style.

 

[ArchAngel]

What makes you think it wants to differentiate itself from XCOM (at least in terms of presentation)? It's obvious Gollop wants to piggyback on the success of nuXCOM, a level of success he never had with his own games. I doubt most nuXCOM players even played the original X-COM game and if they did, I doubt they cared for its more simulationist design.

Doesn't seem like a good strategy, assuming most of their backers expect something like old X-COM (Apocalypse), and most nuXCOM players see it as a ripoff.
It's also just a case of me whining because I personally don't like this style.

On the contrary, most backers don't expect game that is 1:1 copy of old UFO and most nuXcom fans want more games like that one and will flock to anything similar.

This market is not nearly saturated or oversaturated with such games and PP should have no problems having lots of sales unless they frack something up (go full alt-right or something).

 

[UnstableVoltage]

Demo was cool and all but what I really wanted to see was some kind of dev build. Without a console or log it's hard to tell just how simulationist it is under the hood. Is it dice rolls or physics or some combination thereof, I want to know why some bullets hit and some don't, why some hits get shrugged off and why others disable and bleed.

Similarly, the main issue I had with the presentation was the AI. It didn't feel like the AI was cooperating in a clever way. Gunners didn't seem like they would go into heavy cover and overwatch while brawlers rushed you. And it certainly didn't feel like enemies were communicating across the map to converge and flank you, or even if they don't, to come once they hear bullets flying and stuff exploding. LW2 was very good about this sort of thing.

The other main issue is about terrain destruction. When the queen crashed straight through the tower it felt like buildings were papier mache and kinda undermined the physicality of the level. XCOM2 had this problem; the game would load a level and right at the start, big enemies would start fucking up the terrain just crashing through stuff and not being clever with the pathfinding, which kinda destroys the illusion that they existed more than a few seconds ago.

Bullets are fire by raytracing a line from the shooter's weapon to the target. A cone is projected. The more accurate the weapon, the tighter the cone. The further away from the target, the larger the cone will be at the target. The shots from the weapon will all travel randomly within that cone of fire.

Some creatures have armour which mitigates damage. They can have different armour values on different body parts. The Crabman brawler, for example, has an armoured carapace and this shield, meaning he's very hard to damage from the back or from the front (with his shield deployed) with assault rifles. Shots that land damage whichever body part that hit. Each individual body part, along with its own armour value has it's own HP pool. Any HP deducted from a limb is removed from the overall HP of the creature. If the HP of a specific limb reaches 0, it becomes disabled and they gain 1 bleed.

The AI at the moment is very rudimentary and basic. We haven't even begun to tune the AI to make it challenging at this point. This can't really be done until all of the skills and abilities are present.

The destruction model is far from finished. We had limited time to get the demo ready for the show (we were working on it right up until a couple of hours before the show doors opened) so we weren't able to get everything working the way we wanted it to be.

 

[UnstableVoltage]

Very interesting! Is cone size also a function of soldier accuracy?

Not in the current demo, but it will be.

 

[Alienman]

It will from here on be called "The Cone of Rage".

 

[HoboForEternity]

why does it use Firaxis Xcom's 2 AP point?


it is pretty much a decline in tactical game.

i had expected real AP / time points like original x-coms

 

[UnstableVoltage]

why does it use Firaxis Xcom's 2 AP point?

It doesn't

 

[HoboForEternity]

why does it use Firaxis Xcom's 2 AP point?

It doesn't

 

[Destroid]

Demo was cool and all but what I really wanted to see was some kind of dev build. Without a console or log it's hard to tell just how simulationist it is under the hood. Is it dice rolls or physics or some combination thereof, I want to know why some bullets hit and some don't, why some hits get shrugged off and why others disable and bleed.

Similarly, the main issue I had with the presentation was the AI. It didn't feel like the AI was cooperating in a clever way. Gunners didn't seem like they would go into heavy cover and overwatch while brawlers rushed you. And it certainly didn't feel like enemies were communicating across the map to converge and flank you, or even if they don't, to come once they hear bullets flying and stuff exploding. LW2 was very good about this sort of thing.

The other main issue is about terrain destruction. When the queen crashed straight through the tower it felt like buildings were papier mache and kinda undermined the physicality of the level. XCOM2 had this problem; the game would load a level and right at the start, big enemies would start fucking up the terrain just crashing through stuff and not being clever with the pathfinding, which kinda destroys the illusion that they existed more than a few seconds ago.

Bullets are fire by raytracing a line from the shooter's weapon to the target. A cone is projected. The more accurate the weapon, the tighter the cone. The further away from the target, the larger the cone will be at the target. The shots from the weapon will all travel randomly within that cone of fire.

Some creatures have armour which mitigates damage. They can have different armour values on different body parts. The Crabman brawler, for example, has an armoured carapace and this shield, meaning he's very hard to damage from the back or from the front (with his shield deployed) with assault rifles. Shots that land damage whichever body part that hit. Each individual body part, along with its own armour value has it's own HP pool. Any HP deducted from a limb is removed from the overall HP of the creature. If the HP of a specific limb reaches 0, it becomes disabled and they gain 1 bleed.

The AI at the moment is very rudimentary and basic. We haven't even begun to tune the AI to make it challenging at this point. This can't really be done until all of the skills and abilities are present.

The destruction model is far from finished. We had limited time to get the demo ready for the show (we were working on it right up until a couple of hours before the show doors opened) so we weren't able to get everything working the way we wanted it to be.

Is the distribution in the cone of fire even or skewed?

 

[ArchAngel]

why does it use Firaxis Xcom's 2 AP point?


it is pretty much a decline in tactical game.

i had expected real AP / time points like original x-coms

That is just how the game is presented so it is more approachable to modern audience. Watch the other demo gameplay video where he explains the mechanics behind the game while playing it.

 

[Latelistener]

How exactly faction system works in PP? Can you change it from the start?

 

[ArchAngel]

How exactly faction system works in PP? Can you change it from the start?

You always play as PP faction. Then you find 3 other factions in the world. They all fight aliens and usually each other. They ignore you unless you attack them or ally with a faction they are fighting against.
You can get tech and soldiers from these factions if you become their ally or raid their bases (in this case you only steal their tech). You will need to ally with one faction or steal their ultimate tech to be able to beat aliens (at least they said so at one point) so I guess the game will have 3 different endings.

 

[Grotesque]

 

[Grotesque]

why does it use Firaxis Xcom's 2 AP point?

It doesn't

what tier are those armors worn by the soldiers in the demo? early, mid, end game level?

 

[Grotesque]

Phoenix Point should have the direct control tank aiming system of Men of War where the player would be able to move with the mouse the base of the cone (of possible bullet trajectories) on the body of the target.
Also seeing and manipulating the position of the circle (that is the base of the trajectories cone) would give the player a greater feedback where the bullets could land and a chance for the player to maximize his chances to hit if the target is behind cover
If the target is behind cover, the base circle would be a circle segment instead or take any other shape.

In this instance, each bullet has a 96% chance to hit body but half of the enemy's body is behind the corner of the building.
Even if the trajectories cone is invisible to have a better picture , with half the body obstructed, the hit chance shouldn't be way lower?

 

[27]

#ThatsThePlan

Both free aiming of the sort you just mentioned and more 'realistic' terrain destruction (i.e. leaving rubble that you'll be able to use as cover) were planned from the start. The latter seems like something with a much higher chance of being scrapped, though. Anyway, how much do you believe in Julian's promises is another matter entirely, of course.

For example - they've planned to use that silly 'hybrid system' at first, but as can be seen from the recent demo it's now changed into a much more 'classic' AP system - so that's one 'promise' I don't mind being broken expanded upon. The only remnant of nuXCOM system in regards to the movement/action points that I can see now is that you can shoot once per turn by default, which is still a shame but eh. And the presentation is more than just a bit similar, of course.
Exchanging cooldowns for resource management system is a major incline, as far as I'm concerned.

 

[HansDampf]

Oh, so he did explain the differences.

 

[Galdred]

Phoenix Point should have the direct control tank aiming system of Men of War where the player would be able to move with the mouse the base of the cone (of possible bullet trajectories) on the body of the target.
Also seeing and manipulating the position of the circle (that is the base of the trajectories cone) would give the player a greater feedback where the bullets could land and a chance for the player to maximize his chances to hit if the target is behind cover
If the target is behind cover, the base circle would be a circle segment instead or take any other shape.

In this instance, each bullet has a 96% chance to hit body but half of the enemy's body is behind the corner of the building.
Even if the trajectories cone is invisible to have a better picture , with half the body obstructed, the hit chance shouldn't be way lower?

Why should the hit chance be lower? You are always targeting a specific part of your opponent anyway with a weapon. The parts you didn't target being hidden don't automatically lower your chance to hit. Usually the chest or the head. What should change if they have individual body part targeting (but isn't it boss only?) should be the areas you can target.

When I trained, most misses were not due to random spread, but to me breathing at the wrong time, my arm trembling a little, the target moving right when the bullet should have hit him, or some random distraction...
Basically, when things go well, the spread should be very minimal (I am no sniper, and at 200m, my usual spread was 60mm*60mm).
Being behind partial cover minimizes the chance to be hit when the shooter kind of "botches", but it protects way less than the actual percent coverage.
Now for a reflex shot, things should be very different, but still, the % of shots blocked should not vary linearly with the % of body covered, especially if this Richter guy is a competent shooter.

Basically, you should first have a skill check roll for the width of the cone, then a random scatter roll.
If the first skill check passes with a good margin of success, the width should be really minimal.

 

[Ezeekiel]

Additionally, if the target is partially behind a corner or some such the wall in front of him can deflect bullets right into him depending on where they are coming from.
That's why one shouldn't stick to corners the way cover shooters have you do it. Though of course it all depends on the specific situation.

And of course, rounds may pierce the thin corner edge of the wall as well.

 

[Galdred]

Additionally, if the target is partially behind a corner or some such the wall in front of him can deflect bullets right into him depending on where they are coming from.
That's why one shouldn't stick to corners the way cover shooters have you do it. Though of course it all depends on the specific situation.

And of course, rounds may pierce the thin corner edge of the wall as well.

Actually, that is one of reasons sandbags are so widely used (although I guess the main ones are cost, and ease of deployment).

 

[Alienman]