KickStarter Xenonauts 2 - now available on Early Access

[Luka-boy]

'nu-nu-xcom' in VR

Guaranteed GOTD for furries and teratophiliacs.

 

[Elim]

It is much easier to create content for 3d games than it is for 2d games. Yeah, I like pretty 2d games, too. I had no problems with Xenonauts 1.
Games like Xenonauts live and die with a healthy community. And modders are a big part of that.
Now if they do not fuck up the mod support we are in for something good.

 

[Goldhawk]

Dropped in to let you guys know about our plans re: the free beta, but it looks like you've found them on your own. I'll swing by on Monday and explain some of our thinking and solicit feedback from anyone that wants to try the build.

 

[Goldhawk]

OK, so the first public build is available on GOG according to the stuff in these two threads:

• http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/forums/index.php?/topic/13499-xenonauts-2-free-public-builds/
  
• http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/...ts-2-version-004-public-combat-test-released/

As the threads should indicate, this is an early version of the game that contains a single ground combat mission. It's intended for stability testing and to see how badly the fundamental mechanics break when we let non-developers use it. If you go into it expecting an amazing game (or even compare it to X1) then you'll probably be disappointed at this stage, but it's important that the game gets some exposure to real users early in development. If we hide it away until it looks and plays really well then we might find some bugs that are too deep in the code that they would be unfixable (or issues could only be fixed by reworking an unacceptable number of art assets). I figure it's worth potentially putting a few people off at this stage to make something worth buying at the end of it all.

If you liked the original game then we'd appreciate it if you could download it and give it a try, and give us some feedback on how it runs and how it feels. We'll be properly starting to advertise our builds in a couple of weeks and we want to address the most pressing issues first - but having a bit of outside input on which those are is always very helpful! I will come back and check this post and read the feedback / answer questions, but obviously I spend a lot more time on our own forums so if you write anything lengthy then it might be best to put it there.

 

[Jazz_]

Did they improve the slow, boring combat of the first game?

 

[Goldhawk]

Yup, we've implemented fast exciting XCOM combat in its entirety.

 

[Alienman]

I really like it. Sure the game needs a lot of improvements, but just from this little preview it looks promising. I appreciate you kept the realistic sterile look from the first game. I noticed some nice improvements like now the projectiles from weapons actually exist in the game now, more like Silent Storm than your original game. Watching bullets ricochet of rocks and leave marks are really satisfying. Trees need to go transparent when you mouse over them, instead of having to rotate the camera. I think you give away a little too much information when you move around soldiers, it looks very cluttered. Not sure you need that much area-information just to move a soldier. Could just be me though since I love the minimalistic approach to a hud. Ragdolls is a big plus, can't wait to see the little aliens fly when you get access to grenades

 

[Jazz_]

Yup, we've implemented fast exciting XCOM combat in its entirety.

The combat in the original XCOM was more fast paced, tactical and there were more variables to it (destructible environments, etc). in Xenonauts it was just sluggish and boring as hell.

 

[Jimmious]

Alienman throw us some pics!

 

[Alienman]

Alienman throw us some pics!

You know everyone can test it?

Go here:
https://af.gog.com/game/xenonauts_2_demo?as=1649904300

Add it to your account, and then install it through Galaxy.

Edit:

Here is a small picture. Just for you Jimmious

 

[Jimmious]

I know but
1)I'm at work
2) I've no time to play anything until Saturday

Thanks man!!

 

[Cosmo]

Actually this is pretty good !
Hope the animations are on par.

 

[udm]

Fuck, now I'm contemplating applying for sick leave tomorrow.

 

[Goldhawk]

It's not worth taking a day off to play - it's a single mission that lasts 10-15 minutes

We'll be putting out an update tomorrow or Thursday that fixes a few of the issues that users have raised, so even waiting until the weekend wouldn't be the worst thing ever. Thanks for your thoughts Alienman , I'm glad you like it ... pretty much everyone on our forums is complaining about the trees so we'll definitely look at improving the visibility on them as a priority. It's not a quick fix though so I imagine you'll be looking at our update next week for a fix for that. We've tweaked the cover icons a bit too so they match the colour of the rest of the in-game UI, and we've shrunk them down a bit. You weren't the only person saying that things felt a bit cluttered in the playable area.

In general the feedback to the build so far has been good, but I wouldn't mistake that for it actually being genuinely good yet though else you'll be disappointed when you play it - it's more that fans can see the potential there. Also, I know there's a general dislike for 3D here but I think it'll be a good fit for X2. You can see in the screenshot that we can achieve a decent to good graphical quality (hell, this is what the main menu screen currently looks like), and it's really useful for gameplay reasons too. As alienman mentions, simply having the projectiles actually existing in 3d space makes the game seem more natural. There's a whole bunch of problems with 3d that we're still working through and it'll be a while until we can use it to its full potential, but 2d has a bunch of issues with it too so it kinda nets out.

@Jazz - the combat certainly isn't any faster than X1 right now, but if you liked classic X-Com combat then you might find X2 will be more to your tastes later in development. We're not fundamentally changing the mechanics but the new engine will give us more control over the "feel" of it (although right now it's still quite clunky as it'll need a few iterations to polish up the input systems and optimise the code). So give it a few months and then try a build ... free builds will be around for at least a couple of months yet.

 

[udm]

So I played it for a few minutes yesterday. I like it so far. But then I liked X1 anyway. There are also a few changes that I'm not sure I'm fond of eg replacement of crouch with cover system.

Goldhawk I have a question about cover. Will objects protect you even if you stand at a distance from them? Also, is chance-to-hit based on ballistics or probability?

 

[Goldhawk]

So we've just released an update for the free build and the changelog is here: http://www.goldhawkinteractive.com/...ts-2-version-005-public-combat-test-released/

To answer your questions - the camera is fixed at a (faux) isometric angle, but you are able rotate it using Q and E in 90 degree intervals. I'm curious, though - what's wrong with a free camera?

Yes, the cover mostly works like it does in X1 where intervening cover can potentially shield you from incoming fire, however in both games only the cover prop with the highest block chance is used in the calculation. The change in X2 is being adjacent to an item of cover gives it 1.5x the normal block chance, which usually means that it will have the highest block chance. This is what the auto-crouching system represents and we'll be discussing it more in a few weeks as I like the fundamental idea of the system but I'm also not completely sure we want to remove manual crouching. We need to finish our terrain system before we can discuss it properly though as manual crouching in a genuinely 3D map might have more interesting trade-offs than it did in X1, where crouching was almost always the correct decision because it didn't negatively affect your visibility in any way.

 

[Space Satan]

1. Desire to capture human planet
2. Try to start a nuclear war
3. Which will result in devastated planet.
4. ??????
5. PROFIT

 

[agris]

What about scenario destructibility? Any plans for, say, X-COM Apoc level of GLORIOUS destructbility?

I'm curious, though - what's wrong with a free camera?

One ends up fighting the camera as much as he fights the enemy.

Cover objects are destroyable, and seem to have health relative to their construction. I was blowing through trees, rocks, fences and parts of a bridge with my machine gunner. Not sure if the bridges are completely destructible, and I doubt the terrain is deformable but Goldhawk would know.

Right now the camera isn't bad, but the lack of object and actor occlusion, esp the tree tops and rock walls, and actor's blending with the terrain are the biggest problems. Camera feels fine.

 

[Jaedar]

Hey Goldhawk are you perhaps simulating projectile spreads more realistically now (like the original x-com) or are you planning on sticking to the xenonauts 1 model where bullets tend to almost always hit intervening cover?

Even more importantly: dynamically destroyed ufos ala x-com1 where different walls (exterior too) can get blown out and such?

Both contributed to making x1 more formulaic than it should have been. And don't get me started on the recolored lategame enemies that just have ++stats...

 

[sser]

Hey Goldhawk are you perhaps simulating projectile spreads more realistically now (like the original x-com) or are you planning on sticking to the xenonauts 1 model where bullets tend to almost always hit intervening cover?

Even more importantly: dynamically destroyed ufos ala x-com1 where different walls (exterior too) can get blown out and such?

Both contributed to making x1 more formulaic than it should have been. And don't get me started on the recolored lategame enemies that just have ++stats...

I'd imagine so. A lot of Xenonauts' limitations in destruction was due to the engine it was using (some geeky Restaurant Manager app game engine iirc).

Just one thing I'd throw out there -- try and limit the foliage. I know that sounds silly, but blurry foliage filling up the battlemap is just so unnecessary. XCOM did one thing very right in the 3D transition which was keep the battlescapes very clean and crisp.

 

[Goldhawk]

One final update on our plans - we've got another update scheduled for a week on Monday (7th) which contains another batch of more complex fixes, and after that we'll be taking a 2-3 week hiatus to work on the systems that need a major rework like the input system (which is causing the inconsistent cursor) and multi-level line of sight etc. After that we should have the foundations in a good state and we should be able to blast ahead with adding new content.

Yes, the projectile spreads should be more realistic this time round ... although there's still some limitations due to the fact the game rules are based on abstracted tile grid probabilities. You can trace a "miss" shot path in 3d but you have to be careful to do it in a way where it doesn't unexpectedly interact with the game rules, so it might not be completely realistic. But yes, it'll be better than it is in X1. Arguably it already is and the system is only partially complete right now.

The destructibility will be similar to that in Xenonauts 1, in the sense that almost everything can be destroyed if you have a large enough weapon. There's a few caveats - the terrain (grounds and cliffs) are indestructible, and buildings will have metal pillar "skeletons" that support the upper levels if you shoot away the lower walls. Destroying the ground in a 3D game is a whole Pandora's box I have no intention of opening, and simulating building collapse is possible but very complicated and given it would only be triggered very rarely I think dev time is better spent elsewhere.

The UFOs are now partially destructible. Having X-Com style destructible UFOs is only really possible if you're willing to build them out of the thin walls from the first game (i.e. they'd just be boxes), but the ones in X1 were a pretty stupid shape and the fact they only had one entry point made breaching them repetitive. This time around each UFO has several pre-defined weak points (e.g.weapon pods) that can be destroyed depending on how much damage the UFO has taken in combat or when crash-landing. This defines how many weak points are destroyed - and if a weak point is destroyed, it creates a hole in the hull that you can use as an alternative entry point. If not, it's just another invulnerable part of the hull. I'd also like to do a bit more work on allowing the player to fight *inside* the UFOs, as they had more interesting layouts (which were made of destructible walls) than they did in Xenonauts.

Oh, and regarding the foliage - yes, you're correct to an extent. We did have to clean up the map a bit before the release because it really wasn't looking like a tile-based game, so we made the map a bit uglier but much more readable. Obviously you don't want to take that too far though.

 

[ArchAngel]

The UFOs are now partially destructible. Having X-Com style destructible UFOs is only really possible if you're willing to build them out of the thin walls from the first game (i.e. they'd just be boxes), but the ones in X1 were a pretty stupid shape and the fact they only had one entry point made breaching them repetitive. This time around each UFO has several pre-defined weak points (e.g.weapon pods) that can be destroyed depending on how much damage the UFO has taken in combat or when crash-landing. This defines how many weak points are destroyed - and if a weak point is destroyed, it creates a hole in the hull that you can use as an alternative entry point. If not, it's just another invulnerable part of the hull. I'd also like to do a bit more work on allowing the player to fight *inside* the UFOs, as they had more interesting layouts (which were made of destructible walls) than they did in Xenonauts.

BUUUUUUU.. let us have advanced weapons that can open these extra entryways into UFO even if it didn't open during dogfight/crash.

 

[Goldhawk]

Yes, I'd like that and it might well be possible. I'm not going to commit to it at the moment though because we've not had a chance to test how the UFO tiles will work in our levels.

 

[ArchAngel]

Now that we got your reading this topic, can I get your thoughts on why was the starting number of soldiers in Xenonauts reduced to 8 from 14 that Xcom has?

Xcom had a very terror atmosphere which got reinforced each time your troops got one shot from darkness. And you could lose a 6-8 per mission without large loss because you had such big teams and replacing recruits was not expensive. I think it made for a better game.

 

[Jaedar]

The destructibility will be similar to that in Xenonauts 1, in the sense that almost everything can be destroyed if you have a large enough weapon. There's a few caveats - the terrain (grounds and cliffs) are indestructible, and buildings will have metal pillar "skeletons" that support the upper levels if you shoot away the lower walls. Destroying the ground in a 3D game is a whole Pandora's box I have no intention of opening, and simulating building collapse is possible but very complicated and given it would only be triggered very rarely I think dev time is better spent elsewhere.

I swear that x1 had some sort of building collapse mechanic though. I remember killing one of the teleporting aliens by collapsing a building.

Also, while I am wildly requesting improvements: How about more differences between weapon tiers than just ++damage, and differences between later aliens more than ++stats? X1 did a really good job imo of giving each alien race different strengths and weaknesses, but it really didn't scale well to lategame.