Iluvcheezcake
Prophet
Imo let them shoot the alien craft down themselves, assholes
AGreedI mean, you get cash for it, but it should be lazy gamer option, not the optimal choice.
View attachment 58733
What the... Am I going to be punished for wanting to do the missions now? I don't know why Chris got such an aversion to some “grind”. I mean, it's fun collecting stuff for your base/faction, and building up your men. It's the X-com genre, after all. I'm usually all for the player being punished in games, to make the things you do come with consequences, but I'm unsure about this one. It takes away actual gameplay from the game. Going to see what the punishment lands on if I encounter another destroyer.
Yeah, but it was a bad choice. The airstrike was worth like half the cash of doing the mission, so if you used it often you fell behind in the money game (not to mention lost xp and materials, but you do also risk losing some units).In 1st game you could airstrike the crash site for some cash, OR do the mission.
I guess they want to push you into doing more difficult missions rather than grinding the easier ones, since the optimal way to play had always been to do every single mission possible (as the cash reward is usually insignificant) and thus get bogged down in highly repetitive battles. This would solve it, but will the rest of the design be adjusted to match these changes? Two crafts is really little, will there be other kinds of missions to do while waiting for a new ufo to appear, or is the player expected to just sit at the base for weeks at a time?View attachment 58733
What the... Am I going to be punished for wanting to do the missions now? I don't know why Chris got such an aversion to some “grind”. I mean, it's fun collecting stuff for your base/faction, and building up your men. It's the X-com genre, after all. I'm usually all for the player being punished in games, to make the things you do come with consequences, but I'm unsure about this one. It takes away actual gameplay from the game. Going to see what the punishment lands on if I encounter another destroyer.
I guess they want to push you into doing more difficult missions rather than grinding the easier ones, since the optimal way to play had always been to do every single mission possible (as the cash reward is usually insignificant) and thus get bogged down in highly repetitive battles. This would solve it, but will the rest of the design be adjusted to match these changes? Two crafts is really little, will there be other kinds of missions to do while waiting for a new ufo to appear, or is the player expected to just sit at the base for weeks at a time?View attachment 58733
What the... Am I going to be punished for wanting to do the missions now? I don't know why Chris got such an aversion to some “grind”. I mean, it's fun collecting stuff for your base/faction, and building up your men. It's the X-com genre, after all. I'm usually all for the player being punished in games, to make the things you do come with consequences, but I'm unsure about this one. It takes away actual gameplay from the game. Going to see what the punishment lands on if I encounter another destroyer.
Yes, that was the punishment for being lazy. Now you get punished for playing the game well. Or so it seems at least.Yeah, but it was a bad choice. The airstrike was worth like half the cash of doing the mission, so if you used it often you fell behind in the money game (not to mention lost xp and materials, but you do also risk losing some units).In 1st game you could airstrike the crash site for some cash, OR do the mission.
You don't have to do those missions already, as you could always delegate away missions. You get punished by not getting as much loot (money), but now you get punished if you go on the missions. I'm really curious about the penalty. 5 "panic" is not so much, but it does not remove the fact that it's retarded immersion-wise.Dunno man, the most annoying aspect of the original X-COM games for me was that I was compeled to do all the shit personally, instead being able to delegate the missions that I really didnt need nor want to do on someone else without losing points in the monthly review. Fuck doing "random crash site #984," I would even pay money not to have to do that shit a year or two into the game.
Could be meant as an anti-inflation mechanic limiting the "resource input".It's me again. Finally encountered another Destroyer, and well, the penalty is pretty brutal, lol.
View attachment 58751
So, if I decide to do our job, it will panic the whole of the Soviet Union with an incredibly 25 points.
Grinding is bad actually, xenonauts1 suffered from it quite a lot, more than vanilla x-com. I think the main problem is lack of perceived tech progression. Enemy hp and weapons scale as the months go on, so you can expect to need the same amount of shots to kill an enemy at the start as at the end. The flying armor is also kinda bad, and there's no blaster launcher or psi, so you never really hit a point where basic missions become trivial. This makes early game and lategame missions play pretty similarly, which increases the feeling of grind.For some reason, Chris (the main dev) has a strong aversion to some light grinding… in an X-com genre game. Has he seen the mods for OpenXcom
In Harry Turttledove's World War series the aliens didn't have FTL and expected to face medieval society, instead they crash middle of WW2 with their own ground combat tech which was about 70's cold war-tier.The idea of some intelligent lifeform invading Earth and humans being able to resist is retarded. Any civilization capable of organizing massive interstellar logistics hence possessing a much more advanced tech would wipe us out in days if not hours
The concept is retarded. Any species capable of interstellar travel, even if not FTL, would be exponentially more advanced than anything we have for the foreseeable centuries of human development.In Harry Turttledove's World War series the aliens didn't have FTL and expected to face medieval society, instead they crash middle of WW2 with their own ground combat tech which was about 70's cold war-tier.The idea of some intelligent lifeform invading Earth and humans being able to resist is retarded. Any civilization capable of organizing massive interstellar logistics hence possessing a much more advanced tech would wipe us out in days if not hours
Yeah, humanity's survival requires ludicrous blind spot from alien invasion plans.
I think this depends a bit. They could have radical advances in some areas and not in others, or simply have an alien way of conceiving things and not apply technological advances in certain areas the way we would, etc.The concept is retarded. Any species capable of interstellar travel, even if not FTL, would be exponentially more advanced than anything we have for the foreseeable centuries of human development.
And yet, afaik there are examples in human history of natives winning against european settlers and colonizers, despite the latter being 100s of years ahead in tech. It's not that easy to conquer if you're outnumbered 1000:1, and you can't leverage the 1000 to fight amongst themselves. Even if you scatter their armies, you still have to occupy the land and force the survivors to produce value for you.The concept is retarded. Any species capable of interstellar travel, even if not FTL, would be exponentially more advanced than anything we have for the foreseeable centuries of human development.In Harry Turttledove's World War series the aliens didn't have FTL and expected to face medieval society, instead they crash middle of WW2 with their own ground combat tech which was about 70's cold war-tier.The idea of some intelligent lifeform invading Earth and humans being able to resist is retarded. Any civilization capable of organizing massive interstellar logistics hence possessing a much more advanced tech would wipe us out in days if not hours
Yeah, humanity's survival requires ludicrous blind spot from alien invasion plans.
Eh, the fact they have spaceships, handheld weapons, etc. alone implies they develop very similarly as opposed to, say, arachnids from Starship Troopers. Realistically speaking, the aliens would need to be retarded to invade the way they do – either they'd just bombard the planet from outer space or just guide big enough asteroids towards it, so that no earth weaponry can even reach them in the first place, or they'd do what the Spaniards did in the new world and pit half the world against the other (possibly even openly by striking various deals) so that earthlings do the bulk of the fighting for them instead of putting their own assets at risk. Seeing as how they're a multi-species society with experience in subjugating other civilizations, this shouldn't be a tough thing for them to come up with. The invasion done the way it's presented in XCOM and its derivatives is possibly the stupidest, most blockheaded way to go about it. I suppose it's conceivable if the alien commander is spectacularly inept and stupid, but it seems strange that such an advanced society wouldn't instill at least elemetary strategic concepts in all its officers of such rank.I think this depends a bit. They could have radical advances in some areas and not in others, or simply have an alien way of conceiving things and not apply technological advances in certain areas the way we would, etc.The concept is retarded. Any species capable of interstellar travel, even if not FTL, would be exponentially more advanced than anything we have for the foreseeable centuries of human development.